Debates — Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning

Committee stage in the Lords

14 Oct 200974 speechesView in Hansard ↗

Lord Hunt of WirralMy Lords, we have tabled these amendments to draw attention to yet more problems which we see as being inherent in the…
Speaker
Lord Hunt of WirralConservative
Quote
My Lords, we have tabled these amendments to draw attention to yet more problems which we see as being inherent in the Government's desire to replace the Learning and Skills Council with at least two different bodies. We discussed the matter on Monday at some length. I do not want to occupy the Committee for any great period of time on this amendment, except to say that the Association of Colleges has expressed concerns that further education colleges will have to respond to different bodies. Clause 61 enables the YPLA to carry out performance assessments on colleges, but Clause 100 allows the Skills Funding Agency the same privilege, alongside, rather than in co-operation with the other. These amendments were raised in the other place, where discussion centred around the desire to ensure, first, that colleges do not have to deal with more bureaucracy than is strictly necessary and, secondly, that assessments are carried out in a consistent and co-ordinated fashion so that there is no duplication of work, but also that nothing is left uncovered. Amendment 154 would mean that the YPLA, “must consult with … the Skills Funding Agency”, the relevant local education authority in England and Ofsted when undertaking performance assessments which will help inform funding decisions. Amendment 212 would place the same duty on the SFA, which in addition would have to consult the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Given the Government's desire to create these new bodies, it seems sensible that every effort should be made to ensure that they communicate effectively to ensure coherence across the education administration. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer these questions directly. I beg to move.
Time
16:31
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordMy Lords, earlier I indicated to the Opposition that we were not too happy with this amendment, but I misinterpreted it…
Speaker
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, earlier I indicated to the Opposition that we were not too happy with this amendment, but I misinterpreted it and I apologise to the noble Lord. In fact, we have a lot of sympathy with what he is suggesting. It is quite clear that, as the LSC has in its role set targets and assessment schemes for colleges, the YPLA will be doing that not only in relation to the providers of education and training, it will presumably be judging local authorities as well, and it is appropriate that they consult. I was slightly surprised that the amendment mentioned, “a local authority in England”, because the YPLA should be in consultation with all local authorities rather than just a single one. We spoke at length on Monday about the need for the YPLA to be seen to be a co-operative authority working in partnership with local authorities as well as with the subregional groups. We want to see that sense of partnership and we have tabled a series of amendments that we hope the Government will look kindly on to give the YPLA a greater sense of co-operation within the terms of the Bill. These two amendments fit in very well with what we are asking for.
Time
16:31
Source
View in Hansard ↗
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin)My Lords, I hope that I can offer the reassurance that the noble Lords opposite are looking for. As we have heard, Amen…
Speaker
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Children, Schools and Families (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin)Labour
Quote
My Lords, I hope that I can offer the reassurance that the noble Lords opposite are looking for. As we have heard, Amendments 154 and 212 would place a duty on the YPLA and the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency to consult specified bodies. We would all agree, because we have debated it before in Committee, that that is an extremely important principle. The YPLA and the Skills Funding Agency should work in partnership. BIS and DCSF are already developing a new performance assessment scheme in the post-16 education and training sector for introduction in 2010. That is being done, as this House would expect, in consultation with key sector partners. This initial consultation has involved a wide range of stakeholders, noble Lords will be pleased to hear, including the Association of Colleges, the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. The dialogue has taken place already without a specific statutory requirement, although I appreciate noble Lords’ concerns. The expertise of our partners has been invaluable in helping to shape the new arrangements. I can reassure noble Lords that the end result will give the coherence sought by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It will also give a common assessment approach for all types of provider, which will enable us to make valid comparisons of performance across the post-16 sector, and bring greater transparency to commissioning decisions, which will be extremely important. That will ensure that providers are treated fairly and understand the basis of decisions. The Secretary of State will be able to set out in his grant letter, or in guidance under Clause 74, what schemes he expects the YPLA to be involved in and who should be consulted. We can be clear to the YPLA and all those concerned—all our partners—what the performance assessment tools will be. Importantly, the Secretary of State may issue guidance to the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency under Clause 155. I may have signalled to the opposition parties, with some help from officials, that we will commit to using these powers to ensure that the bodies that noble Lords are obviously concerned about will be consulted. I can make a commitment that we will be using this guidance to ensure that the consultation takes place and the coherence that noble Lords are looking for will be made possible. I do not want to detain the Committee now but it would be helpful for me to write to noble Lords about the framework for excellence that is in development, so that noble Lords opposite can have further background on what the programme will be like.
Time
16:31
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Baker of DorkingBefore my noble friend speaks, I applaud him for moving the amendment. It touches on the grave weakness of the Bill, na…
Speaker
Lord Baker of DorkingConservative
Quote
Before my noble friend speaks, I applaud him for moving the amendment. It touches on the grave weakness of the Bill, namely the administrative system that will be set up after it has been enacted. At the moment FE colleges have one funding agency, the Skills Funding Agency. In the future, they will have four funding agencies—the Skills Funding Agency, their own YPLA, HEFCE and the apprenticeship body. It will not be a dialogue but a trialogue or a quadrilogue. There will be constant consultations and discussions; it is a recipe for jungle warfare. Each of those bodies will be under severe financial constraints and none of them will want to be very supportive of what is being done. In my discussions over the recess with members of the FE world and, indeed, the education world, they all looked on this as a total nightmare. I cannot believe that there has been a guiding ministerial hand behind the Bill from Ministers from two departments. Nobody seems to have considered the administrative turmoil that will be inflicted on the whole area of 14 to 19 training and education. It is extraordinary. I have never known a Bill that has needed so many Ministers’ letters to explain parts of it. There was a letter before the House rose to explain the system that I have just outlined. Not only are there four bodies, there are regional assessment committees, local assessment committees and a national assessment committee, all replacing the Learning and Skills Agency. I do not know whether Ministers have totally taken on board how complex this will be. I only hope that the shadow Ministers have because I do not believe that this system will work. I do not suppose it will feature strongly in our manifesto to say that we will overhaul all this, but we will soon find, when in office, that this system will simply break down and not do the job that is needed, which is enforcing the 14 to 19 curriculum. The 14 to 19 curriculum is at the heart of the Bill. The Government were right to identify a 14 to 19 curriculum, but to deliver that curriculum there must be 14 to 19 institutions, not some in FE colleges and some in schools. Until that matter is resolved, there will be confusion, jungle warfare and a great deal of ill will and non-performance. I only hope that Ministers will take this to heart. It goes to the very heart of the Bill. We are setting up the most complex administrative regime that has ever been inflicted on any part of our education system. Can Ministers think of any other part of the education system which is as complex as the system that they are creating? I shall answer for them, since that was a rhetorical question. There is no part of the education system that is as complicated as this. It does a disservice to the area that we are all most interested in, which is improving the training and skills base of many young people in our country.
Time
16:31
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord EltonI add a grace note to what my noble friend has said with such trenchancy. The children and young adults involved in thi…
Speaker
Lord EltonConservative
Quote
I add a grace note to what my noble friend has said with such trenchancy. The children and young adults involved in this are at the most vulnerable stage of their lives. The transition, particularly for those who are in care or depend on benefit, from 17 to 19 is a time when they have to learn to stand on their own feet, when they been accustomed to having their hands held all the time. If their educational programme is going to be thrown into chaos, then, in addition to having to learn how to do that, they will have to struggle with the ropes and strings attached to their education. If they fall foul of that, I am afraid that there will be more young people lost to society.
Time
16:31
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord LucasMy Lords, would it not be better to have just one body that is responsible for designing these assessments? It seems to…
Speaker
Lord LucasConservative
Quote
My Lords, would it not be better to have just one body that is responsible for designing these assessments? It seems to me that it ought to be Ofsted, which actually knows how to do these things, rather than a couple of newly created bodies which are going to have to find their own way. If one body was responsible for creating these assessments and had, naturally, to consult with the many created agencies which have an interest in these things, at least it would get done simply and consistently, and once it was done it would not be subject to endless argument and tussling.
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteMy Lords, what has been said illustrates the real concerns that everybody has with this Bill. Will the Minister answer…
Speaker
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteCrossbench
Quote
My Lords, what has been said illustrates the real concerns that everybody has with this Bill. Will the Minister answer the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about the wording of the amendment—namely whether, “(b) a local education authority”, is right, or whether it should encompass a much broader concept? However, my main point is that I hope the Minister will take back the real concerns about the way that this is being set up.
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinMy Lords, I agree with much of what has been said about the detail and complexity of many Bills, not just this one. The…
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
My Lords, I agree with much of what has been said about the detail and complexity of many Bills, not just this one. The first Bill on which I worked was the Welfare Reform Bill, which was incredibly complicated. Part of the complication in this Bill arises from the fact that we are talking about the machinery of government changes. Regardless of how complicated the back-wiring is, it has to be described in the Bill, which means that Ministers have to devote time to writing letters and circulating them. That is certainly the way that I like to work. I shall continue to write letters and I apologise if noble Lords find that too burdensome. We expect colleges to have two conversations: a conversation with their local authority on pre-19 provision and a conversation with the SFA on post-19 provision. Our aspiration and commitment is to simplify for institutions and learners the experience of engaging in 14 to 19 and post-19 education. I cannot answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, about the amendment because it is not my amendment. However, as regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on assessments, the framework for excellence is being developed by BIS and DCSF in partnership with providers. Through the performance management arrangements we aim to reduce the number of inspections that institutions have to have so that Ofsted can move towards its lighter touch approach. This is about providing practical tools, but as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as regards the guidance, we are happy to give a commitment that we will be explicit about the consultation that he wishes to see.
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Hunt of WirralMy Lords, as I think the Minister will be aware, I detect a general view on all sides of the Committee that this is not…
Speaker
Lord Hunt of WirralConservative
Quote
My Lords, as I think the Minister will be aware, I detect a general view on all sides of the Committee that this is not a simple system. As my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking put it, there is great worry that it will be a rather complicated system which a lot of people will find very difficult to operate within. However much guidance you supply, the more bodies you create, the more complex the structure automatically becomes. In a way, there is a demand—we should just have one main body, instead of trying to divide responsibilities. That has come across in a number of these debates. I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp of Guildford and Lady Howe of Idlicote, that I recognise that there are one or two things about the amendment that render it slightly imperfect, and I will take them away to consider them. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, for not explaining at the outset that I did carefully think about the point that she raised on Monday, and I endeavoured to put it as a matter of principle and practice in moving the amendment rather than tying myself to the precise detail. Coming back to the point raised by my noble friends Lord Elton and Lord Lucas, I sense that we are now getting before us very complicated legislation. I know that the Government have been in power for—what is it?—12 years now, and they have a lot to answer for. They keep amending, reamending and creating new bodies here and there, with new emphases. Do they not realise that they are creating more complications and more bureaucracy all the time? There must be a simpler solution and a more streamlined operation. My spirits were uplifted when the Minister said that she agreed with much of what my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking said. I hope that she will read the comments that he made, because I sense that they were echoed right around the Chamber. If she manages to come forward on Report with a series of amendments that present a streamlined, easy-to-understand approach that will make life less complicated, there will be general approval. Will she permit us a little cynicism and scepticism about whether that is likely to happen? As my noble friend pointed out, we are dealing with a number of ministerial responsibilities and a number of different departments, and life is getting too complicated. I am worried about the bureaucracy. Whoever is going to operate the system will need more than just guidance; they will have to simplify the system. Where better to do that than in the legislation itself, before we approve it? So many points have been raised in what has been a valuable and short debate. I hope that the Minister will do a little bit more. I heard her say “partnership” and mention a “common assessment approach”, which I warmly applaud. I hope that she recognises that we are looking for a little bit more to try to reassure everyone who has to operate in what is going to be a very complicated field. That is the purpose of my amendment. I am delighted that it has had the effect it has, which was to make the Minister think pretty deeply about exactly what she and her ministerial colleagues are creating. Against that background, I have much pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Low of DalstonAmendment 155 would require the YPLA to establish a quality control framework which includes learners, parents and orga…
Speaker
Lord Low of DalstonCrossbench
Quote
Amendment 155 would require the YPLA to establish a quality control framework which includes learners, parents and organisations representing learners. I shall also speak briefly to Amendment 161, which says: “The YPLA must ensure that learning difficulty assessments are carried out by suitably qualified persons … within 3 months”. I declare again my interest as president of SKILL, the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities. I thank the Government again for their constructive engagement with SKILL over the summer on the guidance for Sections 139A and 140—that is, the guidance under the Act of last year. I cannot emphasise enough how useful it would be if we could see the Government’s response to the consultation that has taken place on the guidance before Report. However, even without that, I can say at this stage that, in the light of the engagement over the summer between Ministers and SKILL, it will be possible to withdraw the amendment this evening. I would like assurances on three points to clear up one or two remaining loose ends. These are matters on which I spoke at some length when we debated Clause 40 earlier in Committee. First, I seek assurance that the YPLA will establish a quality control framework to underpin the assessment process, involving disabled learners, parents and organisations representing disabled learners, as called for by Amendment 155. In other words, the reassurance that I am seeking is that it will be put in place by administrative action if it cannot be written into the Bill. I also hope that a complaints procedure will be put in place. Secondly, it would be good to know that a senior person will be required to sign off the Section 139A assessments, as a means of providing a framework of accountability—something that was found to be sadly lacking by the court in the case of Alloway v London Borough of Bromley. Thirdly, I would like to be reassured that the guidance that will be produced on the Bill will indicate that local authorities should arrange an assessment of disabled young people’s learning and support needs, including their transport needs as well as wider transition planning, wherever they believe that an assessment would be beneficial, regardless of whether the learner has been assessed or supported before. In other words, I seek an assurance that all those needing an assessment will receive one. If the Minister will help me on these points, it should be possible to withdraw the amendment.
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordMy Lords, my name is attached to this amendment, along with that of the noble Lord, Lord Low, and I heartily endorse wh…
Speaker
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment, along with that of the noble Lord, Lord Low, and I heartily endorse what he has said. I will speak briefly about one category of students about whom I am particularly concerned—disabled students who do not have a learning disability assessment to start off with and who are sometimes put at a disadvantage in post-16 provision and support. We know that, quite often, those who drop out of the school system at 16 and move into the college sector are found to have learning disabilities of one sort or another. It is vital, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, that at an early stage in their post-16 career assessments should be made and proper provision and support given to them. This was brought to my attention by my honourable friend in the other place, Annette Brooke MP. She had a constituent with learning difficulties who, after some time, signed up at a college to do a level 1 course. However, because by that time they were over 19, they got no support whatever. If they had been given a proper learning difficulty assessment at an earlier point, they would have been entitled to support through to the age of 25, but, as no such assessment had been made, no support was forthcoming. They were in some difficulty, although they could appeal to the college. That casework issue was brought to my attention by my honourable friend, as she felt that there was an anomaly. People do not necessarily have learning difficulty assessments but, when they get one later, they are then given the support that they need at that point, including financial support.
Time
16:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord RamsbothamMy Lords, here again is a classic example of where co-operation is needed between ministries. In earlier parts of the B…
Speaker
Lord RamsbothamCrossbench
Quote
My Lords, here again is a classic example of where co-operation is needed between ministries. In earlier parts of the Bill, we discussed the problem of those with learning disabilities and learning difficulties who are in custody and what should happen to them. A draft National Standards for Youth Justice Services has recently been published for consultation. It talks about the standards that should be observed in young offender institutions and others. I hope very much that in pursuing what my noble friend Lord Low has recommended, with which I thoroughly agree, the Minister will make certain that, instead of having two separate systems for the same sort of people, the Ministry of Justice will be involved in close liaison with the YPLA, which has the responsibility for this. That should happen not least because, in the future, once these assessments have been carried out, as one hopes, the YPLA will ensure that something that has been identified as needing treatment is continued in custody, just as when something is identified in custody it oversees what happens in the community on the release of that individual.
Time
17:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Hunt of WirralMy Lords, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, show grea…
Speaker
Lord Hunt of WirralConservative
Quote
My Lords, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, show great insight and consideration for the consequences of the Bill’s provisions and reflect the desire that I detected across the Committee to promote the best quality of education. As has been explained, the first amendment would ensure that the views of learners and parents were taken into account regarding the quality of education and possible improvements that could be made. I hope that the Minister will let us know whether there is already a channel for representations from these groups and how it works. Does he acknowledge the importance of receiving the views of those at the receiving end of the new machinery to ensure that the best possible service is provided? The Committee will be aware of the various interests that I have recorded in the register, including, like the noble Lord, Lord Low, association with a number of groups that are keen to see Amendments 155 and 161 accepted. Quality control is a necessary part of educational provision. Recent evidence from the National Audit Office’s survey Supporting People with Autism through Adulthood shows that learning difficulty assessments carried out under new Section 139A of the Education and Skills Act 2008 have been lacking in quality and that statutory obligations have not been met. Does the Minister agree that action must be taken to fix that? The NAO study showed that only 17 per cent of respondents thought that Section 140 assessments were “very useful”. That is a very low percentage. Does the Minister agree that a quality framework, informed by the views of parents and learners, might enable that figure to rise? If the Minister cannot support the amendment, it would be interesting to hear his alternative strategy to ensure that learning difficulty assessments are carried out with the utmost regard for quality. At a recent Skill seminar, it was mooted that perhaps, as has already been mentioned, Section 139A should undergo some form of national auditing in order to ensure quality, or that there should be a system of incentives and penalties to encourage quality. Perhaps the Minister will respond to those recommendations. We also very much support the second amendment in the group. Amendment 161 specifies that a learning difficulty assessment must be carried out by a suitably qualified person. That sounds like common sense; nevertheless, despite that being a seemingly obvious approach, the National Audit Office report that I mentioned took evidence from a student support co-ordinator at a further education college, who said that, “the usefulness of the Connexions Section 140 assessments very much depends on the individual Personal Advisor. Many do not have specialist training in working with learners with learning difficulties or disabilities”. Can the Minister explain that failing and expand on what he considers “suitably qualified” to mean? I agree with the request that the YPLA must ensure that it has regard to the timely delivery of learning difficulty assessments. Does the Minister think that three months is an appropriate length of time? Does he have any figures available that might inform the Committee about how long the process normally takes? Finally on these two amendments, can the Minister update the Committee on the results of the consultation regarding draft guidance on Section 139A assessments? Can he, for example, inform us whether Skill’s concerns regarding specific mention of the YPLA, so that the guidance will reflect the agencies introduced by the Bill, have been, or will be, dealt with? I warmly support the amendments.
Time
17:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Lord Young of Norwood Green)My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the agencies with whom we have dealt for all their co-operation.…
Speaker
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Lord Young of Norwood Green)Labour
Quote
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the agencies with whom we have dealt for all their co-operation. We have had a lot of dialogue, as was reflected in the noble Lord’s opening contribution. I entirely agree with the sentiment behind Amendment 155 that the YPLA, when developing schemes for the assessment of the performance of education and training, should be guided by the use of learners, parents and organisations representing learners. I reassure the noble Lord about the arrangements that are already in place and will continue once the YPLA is established to ensure that the views of learners and parents are given the highest priority. The YPLA will adopt and develop the framework for excellence, which will provide a quantitative performance assessment tool with standard indicators against which to assess providers. This will include an annual learner views survey, which will enable all learners to voice their opinions about the quality and effectiveness of the learning that they receive. Consultation is already under way with key stakeholders, including the National Union of Students and Skill. I am advised that we hope to be able to issue the results of the consultation before Report. I sympathise with the noble Lord’s concern about the issue raised in Amendment 161. We have been working closely with Skill to improve the statutory guidance given to local authorities about their duty to carry out learning difficulty assessments. We intend to issue the revised guidance, together with a report on the consultation, in the late autumn. This will be followed up by a further document in early 2010, providing guidance arising from the changes described in the Bill, once enacted. The guidance to be issued this autumn will reinforce the importance of local authorities having a quality assurance system in place covering Section 139A assessment. In addition, it will emphasise, through the inclusion of good practice case studies, the importance of senior management accountability for the quality of the assessment. Learners and their parents and carers will have access to a local authority’s complaints procedure, an issue that was raised in this debate. We will also ensure that the guidance sets out clearly, based on effective practice, what should be included in a Section 139A assessment, such as transport, which concerned the noble Lord, Lord Low. It will also set out who should be given an assessment. The importance of a multi-agency approach to assessment will be highlighted and examples will demonstrate wider transition planning. Before I conclude, I shall try to deal with some of the questions raised. The noble Lord, Lord Low, asked whether someone could get a Section 139A assessment if they had not previously been assessed. There is no need for a pre-16 year-old statement. It is right that that should be so—for example, a learning difficulty may be diagnosed only later in life. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was concerned that young people without an LDA are at a disadvantage in post-16 education. Our view is that that is not the case. We make support available through the additional learning support funds and an LDA is not necessary to qualify for the additional learning support. Our figures are that there are currently 320,000 young people with self-declared learning difficulties or disabilities in FE colleges being helped and supported. I do not think that there is ever room for complacency, but important progress has been made. One of the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was whether the new guidance will reflect the National Audit Office’s report on Section 139A assessments. In view of the inconsistent quality of learning difficulty assessments, we have instituted a major review of the system supporting those with additional needs. This will be conducted by Ofsted and will include issues around transition from school, assessment and support services. We will wait until that review has reported before making any changes to the post-16 assessment process, but we see that as an important issue. I am not sure that I can answer the question about training for Connexions advisers now, but I shall do so in writing. There is training, but I share the concern that we need to have consistency in the quality of the training and advice given, because this is an important group. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, asked whether the assessment would be the same for those in young offender institutions. I think that it should be, but I shall confirm that in writing. I am looking at the Box and am being told that it is the same assessment, so it looks like I do not have to confirm that. With those statements and with the assurances given, I trust that the noble Lord will feel that he can withdraw the amendment.
Time
17:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord EltonBefore he does so, can the Minister tell us a couple of things about what is going on at the moment? I think he mention…
Speaker
Lord EltonConservative
Quote
Before he does so, can the Minister tell us a couple of things about what is going on at the moment? I think he mentioned a national learners’ survey in which every learner will be able to express an opinion. Will he tell us what that comprises, how many people contribute to it and what is done with the result? Secondly, the Minister referred to 320,000 students with self-declared learning difficulties in CFEs. What provision is made for them?
Time
17:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Young of Norwood GreenI think I made it clear that they qualify for the additional learner support funding. I do not have such a ready answer…
Speaker
Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
Quote
I think I made it clear that they qualify for the additional learner support funding. I do not have such a ready answer on the national learner survey and I will have to come back to the noble Lord on exactly how that will work. I think he wants to know exactly who is participating in it and what will happen with the results. We need to come back to him on that point.
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordThe Minister said that those without a learning difficulty assessment are not at a disadvantage. However, there is free…
Speaker
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
The Minister said that those without a learning difficulty assessment are not at a disadvantage. However, there is free tuition up to the age of 25 if you have a learning difficulty assessment. If you do not have a learning difficulty assessment, when you are 19 you have to start paying tuition fees. There are substantial financial advantages in having an assessment, and if young people do not get an assessment before they are 19 there can be considerable difficulties.
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Young of Norwood GreenI have been told that the report on the annual learner survey will form part of the framework for excellence. I do not…
Speaker
Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
Quote
I have been told that the report on the annual learner survey will form part of the framework for excellence. I do not want to dispute the noble Baroness’s point about the disadvantage of not having an assessment. I will come back to her on the arrangements that we make to ensure the point that we all believe in: that everyone has an assessment.
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordThat reinforces the point of Amendment 155: that it is important, when the student is in the transition phase from 16 o…
Speaker
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
That reinforces the point of Amendment 155: that it is important, when the student is in the transition phase from 16 onwards and goes on to some sort of post-16 education and training, that there is a high-quality assessment of their capabilities.
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord EltonWe were told just before the Summer Recess that 7,000 teachers were going to be trained specifically to make these sort…
Speaker
Lord EltonConservative
Quote
We were told just before the Summer Recess that 7,000 teachers were going to be trained specifically to make these sorts of assessments. May we be told how they are getting on—if not now, then in a letter perhaps?
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Young of Norwood GreenWe will reply to the noble Lord in writing.
Speaker
Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
Quote
We will reply to the noble Lord in writing.
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Low of DalstonI thank all noble Lords for their support for the amendments in this short debate. I also thank the Minister for his ve…
Speaker
Lord Low of DalstonCrossbench
Quote
I thank all noble Lords for their support for the amendments in this short debate. I also thank the Minister for his very full and, I think, forthcoming and accommodating response. I asked for three assurances and I think that he has met them all. He has indicated that a quality control framework will be established; that senior persons will be involved in these assessments in order to provide a proper structure of accountability; and, perhaps most important of all, that the guidance will indicate who should receive an assessment and that assessments will not just be confined to those who have been supported at an earlier stage. They are all important points, but that may turn out to be one of the most important. Much will turn on the guidance, and we will want to look at that. I am very glad to learn that the Government hope to make it available before Report so that we can look at it. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, particularly pressed on the need to ensure that those who have not had an assessment but who may still have a learning difficulty are not put at a disadvantage, and can have their needs met and be given the support that they require. As we continue to discuss the Bill, going forward to some amendments later this evening, we will find that is really quite a key issue. Discussions have been continuing on that issue, as well as the ones I have drawn particular attention to with these amendments. We may have some distance further to travel before we have a complete unity of view between ourselves and the department on that issue—the question of support for the wider, more numerous group of students than those who have had a learning difficulty assessment. We have further to go in discussing that issue. However, regarding the particular issues I have raised with these amendments, I should like to thank the Minister again; his responses have been very helpful and, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord LucasMy Lords, might I ask a couple of quick questions on Clause 63? I am not necessarily expecting a quick answer. On subse…
Speaker
Lord LucasConservative
Quote
My Lords, might I ask a couple of quick questions on Clause 63? I am not necessarily expecting a quick answer. On subsection (1), I am interested to know how the usual sort of charges which hang around education fare under this particular wording. Those are things like charges for musical instruments, trips, the cost of a uniform or other workwear required for particular applications. How will those fare under that wording? Similarly, I read subsection (4) as saying that if the YPLA is providing any funding to an institution, then all the education provided by that institution is subject to this clause. If I am reading that wrong, I should be grateful for some comfort. I would also be interested to know what is proposed in the regulations under subsection (5).
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinMy Lords, I shall do my best to respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. This comes about because of th…
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
My Lords, I shall do my best to respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. This comes about because of the raising of the participation age and the requirement that post-16 education becomes compulsory as we go forward with that. We therefore have to apply the prohibition on charging to a higher age group; that is what this clause is about. My assumption—and I look behind me as I say this—is that charging for uniforms and musical instrument lessons will apply in the older age group in the same way as it applies at present in the younger age group. I was not getting a lot of inspiration on this, but I have some now, so I can tell noble Lords that regulations made under subsection (5) of this clause will specify what would or would not be considered as prohibited charges. We propose that the regulations will reflect the conditions that the LSC currently applies, as set out in the LSC Funding Guidance 2008/09: Principles, Rules and Regulations. For example, paragraph 47(c)(xi) of that guidance states: “Charges may continue to be made for … travel, board and lodging”. We therefore expect that to be included in the regulations and for that to remain the policy position. Subject, of course, to Royal Assent of the Bill, regulations made under this section will be subject to full consultation before coming into force. I am willing to give the noble Lord further information if he so requires, but as I have said, legislation passed recently to raise the participation age means that from 2015 young people will have to continue in education or training until their 18th birthday so, as far as practicable, they should not be charged for this education or training. As the noble Lord knows, this clause will place a duty on the YPLA to exercise its functions in relation to funding so that young people accessing education or training are not charged inappropriately. It is the age of the young person that is key.
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord LucasMy Lords, that is a helpful answer to my questions on subsections (1) and (5) but not to subsection (4). I do not expec…
Speaker
Lord LucasConservative
Quote
My Lords, that is a helpful answer to my questions on subsections (1) and (5) but not to subsection (4). I do not expect the noble Baroness to respond to that now and I am content to receive a letter.
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness VermaWe now move on to discuss the position of academies within this legislation. As the Bill stands, Clause 75 allows the S…
Speaker
Baroness VermaConservative
Quote
We now move on to discuss the position of academies within this legislation. As the Bill stands, Clause 75 allows the Secretary of State to require the YPLA to enter into arrangements with the Secretary of State. These arrangements may require the YPLA to carry out specified functions of the Secretary of State in relation to academies, city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts. We on these Benches believe strongly that the YPLA is not the appropriate body to take responsibility for the extremely important task of supporting the success of academies. According to the Government’s own description, the YPLA is a body being set up primarily to, “support and enable local authorities to carry out their new responsibilities”. The summary of the Bill’s proposals which the Government issued then describes how the YPLA will perform this function. It is only when we reach the final sentence on the YPLA that it states: “The YPLA will also perform a number of functions on the Secretary of State’s behalf in relation to academies”. That speaks volumes. From this description it appears that academies have been included under the auspices of the YPLA because the Government needed to place them somewhere. As there are around 400 academies, of course we acknowledge that we must seek the best way forward. But this is not it. In this Bill academies have been pushed under the YPLA for no other reason than that the Government are attempting to avoid a difficult thought process. The YPLA is a body being set up to lead local authorities in their education functions in relation to those aged between 16 and 19. It therefore seems entirely inappropriate that it should also have functions relating to academies, most of which have pupils between the ages of 11 and 18; some even have primary schools attached. Surely the Minister can see that the YPLA is therefore entirely inappropriate for academies. Will she inform the Committee of any other ideas that were raised regarding the status and position of academies? The academies have raised serious concerns on the issue of independence, and our amendments attempt to alleviate them. Amendment 162 would mean that the Secretary of State can enter into an agreement with an academy only if it has agreed. Amendment 163 would require the YPLA to support the objective of academy autonomy when exercising the specified functions on behalf of the Secretary of State. Amendment 164 would insert a right of appeal if an academy believes that the YPLA has made an unreasonable decision. Amendment 166 would provide exemptions by removing the power to specify that particular functions may include those set out in Section 482 of the Education Act 1996 dealing with the setting up and running of academies, and Section 35A relating to academies and land. Amendment 168 would remove the power of the YPLA to enter into any agreement with the Secretary of State connected with the issue of monitoring and assessing school performance. This is a job for Ofsted. If the Government feel that Ofsted is failing in its duties, any changes introduced should surely be to improve Ofsted itself.
Time
17:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness WalmsleyMy Lords, it has been extremely helpful to hear what a Conservative Government would do with the academies should they…
Speaker
Baroness WalmsleyLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, it has been extremely helpful to hear what a Conservative Government would do with the academies should they be given the confidence of the electorate at some time in the future. But I turn to what the Government have done to them. It occurs to me that they have created a monster. It might be a benign monster in many ways, but it is a monster. They started with a few academies, which became tens of academies and then hundreds of academies. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. It is clear that Part 3, Chapter 4 is designed to do something about the quandary in which the Government find themselves. You cannot run 400 schools from the department. It seems to us, as it does to the Official Opposition, that it has been very much an afterthought to put the academies into YPLA’s portfolio of responsibilities, and that it is not necessarily the best place for them. Many academies do a very good job for children, but that is hardly surprising, because most of them are shiny, wonderful and beautifully resourced new schools. They attract the best teachers and parents who take a lot of interest in their child’s education and who would choose to send their child to these schools. Those circumstances in any school would lead to considerable success. We congratulate the schools and the children on that success, but our vision is of an education system that is a service to the whole community—not only to the children who are at the school at the moment, and the parents of those children, but to the children who will come down the track seven years later when the present cohort of children has gone. We therefore see the local authority’s role as somewhat more important, as the democratically elected representative of the whole community. That is why our vision of the academy system is slightly different from that of the Official Opposition. We would like local authorities to be able to bring academies more closely into the local family of schools, with more co-operation between them. Although I am happy with the idea that the noble Baroness has just outlined in Amendment 169ZB—that there should be a review of academies legislation 12 months after the commencement of the Act—I would like that review to include the effects of an academy on other schools in the neighbourhood and to talk to local authorities about whether they wanted academies in the first place. As we all know, the only game in town these days if you want a new school is to have an academy, or you simply will not get the funding. As for our Amendments 165 and 167, the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, expressed concerns about the YPLA’s ability to control the funding of academies. This matter was discussed at length in the Public Bill Committee in the other place. The Minister, Jim Knight, stated: “we have no intention of requiring the YPLA to enter into funding agreements with academies … Even if we did want funding agreements to be negotiated with the YPLA in the future, by law the contracting party would still be the Secretary of State. Therefore, the Secretary of State and the Department will take an active interest in any funding agreements for the setting up of academies”. “Take an active interest” is a very strange expression if you are contractually involved in an agreement. However, he continued: “My understanding is that the only academy funding agreement that can be undertaken is the one between the Secretary of State and the academy sponsor. It is therefore not possible for the YPLA to enter into such an agreement”.—[Official Report, Commons, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill Committee, 19/3/09; col. 448.] So the impression of the Minister in another place of what the Bill will allow the YPLA to do in relation to funding agreements is clear. However, the NUT, which has briefed us about these two amendments, has had its legal eagles look at the Bill. They feel that a coach and horses could be driven through Clause 75 on this matter and that an ambitious YPLA could enter into such an agreement under the Bill. All we are asking in Amendments 165 and 167 is for the Government to close that loophole and to make it absolutely clear that the Secretary of State has the contractual responsibility and that the YPLA cannot do it. These are technical amendments—they are not principled amendments, particularly—on a matter that needs to be put right. As to the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, we feel that the arbitration referred to in Amendment 155B may be quite useful if there is a local disagreement on sixth-form provision. We feel that, if Amendment 162 were put in, there would be no need for the YPLA to have the responsibility, so we do not see the need for it. On Amendment 164, we believe that a right of appeal is reasonable, should the academies feel that the YPLA has made a decision that is unreasonable in the circumstances and we would support that. On Amendment 168, we agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, that monitoring and assessment of school performance is Ofsted’s job and not that of the YPLA. The Minister has an amendment in this group, Amendment 169. We were pleased to see that and we welcome it. It relates to not including functions of making, confirming or improving subordinate legislation. We feel that these matters are so important in the picture of secondary legislation in this country at the moment that such things should certainly come back to Parliament; the YPLA should not be able to do them. I have already mentioned Amendment 169ZB regarding the annual review, in which we would want to include the effects on the wider school family, not just the academies, albeit that many of them do a very good job. A Liberal Democrat Government would not get rid of academies; I should like to make that clear—not that we are necessarily expecting it to happen. As I said, we have a public service here for the whole community and it is vital that the democratic representatives of that community should have an appropriate say in the range of schooling that is offered to children and that no children are disadvantaged by the presence in their midst of these schools, which are quasi-independent but funded by the state. Many of them are very good, although some of their selection processes have, shall we say, given rise to questions in the past.
Time
17:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Perry of SouthwarkMy Lords, when we are concentrating in these amendments on the technical arrangements—indeed, this part of the Bill get…
Speaker
Baroness Perry of SouthwarkConservative
Quote
My Lords, when we are concentrating in these amendments on the technical arrangements—indeed, this part of the Bill gets into technicalities—it is worth reflecting on why it is important that academies have autonomy. We are making an assumption that it is a good thing that they are independent and autonomous and perhaps we should remind ourselves why that is so important. We have at the moment probably the greatest disparity in our nation’s history between the performance of children in the poorest schools and those in the best schools. It is appalling that we still have a considerable number of schools where very few children—fewer than 20 per cent—attain the necessary five good GCSEs whereas others are regularly attaining 92 per cent, 95 per cent or 98 per cent. For many decades now—in fact, for over a century—the local authorities have been in charge of local authority schools in the most deprived areas and we have not seen any improvement. I remember vividly, in my days long ago as a chief inspector, that when we were asked by the then Secretary of State to prepare a map of the most deprived areas of cities, and after we had worked away for many months doing so with the advice of all our troops out in the field, one of the clerks responsible for mapping pointed out that the maps exactly overlaid those of the 1930s. Schools in exactly the same areas had been designated as areas of extreme disadvantage educationally 40 years later. Something drastic is needed, rather than just encouraging local authorities to make every school a good one. I am tired of hearing that; I have heard it for 30 years. They have not succeeded in doing so. I am a great supporter of local authorities—local education authorities have been huge contributors to the quality of education over the years—but they have not cracked the issue of areas of extreme educational and social deprivation. However, the academy programme has begun to do that. I declare an interest as a trustee of Bacon’s, which is a Church of England academy that has over recent years made astonishing changes to the lives of hundreds of children. The Harris academies in south London have so far turned around the lives of more than 18,000 young people. That is why it is desperately important that academies are allowed to experiment and innovate. They should be allowed to bring in different hours of schooling, as many of them have done, and different contracts for teachers, requiring them to do more in different things, as well as bringing in different areas of the curriculum which may not be in the national curriculum. All those freedoms, quite apart from their shiny new buildings, have enabled the academies to turn around the lives of many thousands of children. Of course, we support the programme and want to see it vastly expanded, with far more than 400 academies, but we also want to see the absolute autonomy of those schools to perform differently from local authority schools and to tackle a problem that has remained for over a century.
Time
17:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord EltonJust to put shiny new schools in perspective, it is important to remember that what actually delivers a first-class edu…
Speaker
Lord EltonConservative
Quote
Just to put shiny new schools in perspective, it is important to remember that what actually delivers a first-class education is a first-class teacher, not a first-class building. My noble friend’s first amendment deals with sixth forms. The presence or absence of a sixth form in a school affects not only the attitudes of children at the school but the calibre of staff that are attracted to it. Therefore, the award of a sixth form is an integral and important part of setting up an academy. My noble friend thereby addresses a very important point. A local authority, faced with a choice between an academy and preserving a successful sixth form, could condemn the academy and its much wider effect to failure—or it might not come into existence, simply because it was denied a sixth form. Some form of arbitration independent of the local authority is absolutely essential.
Time
17:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinMy Lords, I am delighted to respond to an extremely important debate. With the Committee’s forgiveness, I will take tim…
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
My Lords, I am delighted to respond to an extremely important debate. With the Committee’s forgiveness, I will take time to go through the points that have been raised. In some ways, I am speaking to the Committee, but I also speak to those outside the House who have made a great contribution to the education of children and young people in this country through their involvement in the academies movement. I strongly believe that this Government have made a hugely significant impact on school improvement in this country. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that we have transformed the performance of our schools. Back in 1997—although I do not have the exact numbers in front of me—the number of schools that failed to achieve more than 30 per cent of pupils with five good GCSEs was measured in thousands, whereas now the number of schools qualifying for national challenge status is well down to the low hundreds. Academies have played an extremely important part through their innovation, strong leadership and fresh resources, as well as through the work that they do. I pay tribute to them, their leadership and their sponsors—and, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, reminds us, to the teachers serving in them. I hope that I can give the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, some reassurance, too. She asked whether we could put right some of her concerns. I hope that, if I can make some of the tweaks that she mentioned, I can look forward to her support in taking forward the new shape of the clauses that would flow from those tweaks. I am delighted that there is a perception that middle-class children are attending academies, but I want to remind the Committee that academies have a higher proportion of children who are entitled to free school meals. They serve, as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, explained so eloquently, some of the most deprived and challenged communities. We strongly support the work of the Harris academies, to which she referred. I repeat that there is nothing that we are doing that would inhibit the great contribution that academies have made and will make in the future. I believe that I can offer the reassurances that noble Lords are looking for. As we have heard, the provisions in this Bill are designed to help us to move forward towards our target of 400 strong, high-performing academies. We are committed to preserving all those innovations in academies and the autonomy that has made them so successful in delivering better outcomes for pupils. We do not believe that the proposals will undermine that success. I want to explain how they will, in fact, strengthen the academies programme and enhance the support that we are able to offer academies. These provisions are enabling. They allow the Secretary of State to make academy arrangements with the YPLA; they do not require him to do so. We know that some sponsors and principals have doubts about how the arrangements with the YPLA will work in practice, particularly, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, in connection with the commissioning of sixth-form places. I understand that we have to provide reassurance at this stage. I accept that this a new way of operating. However, we are strongly committed to consulting academies on the details to make sure that we get this right. Over the past few months, we have held a number of consultations and meetings with those concerned and will continue to do so. We have established a reference group of academy sponsors and principals—it has already met and is scheduled to meet again tomorrow—which will focus in particular on sixth-form commissioning and funding. We will also consult widely with sponsors, particularly those running a number of academies where their particular expertise has a lot to offer. We want to hear their specific concerns so that we can address them and clarify any uncertainties. I can commit to providing, by Report, an outline of what we plan to include in the Secretary of State’s policy guidance to the YPLA in relation to academy arrangements. That outline will also set the key principles that should govern the way in which the YPLA operates in relation to academies. I would expect those principles to include absolute respect for the autonomy of academies that noble Lords have spoken about. In the other place, both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats said that the current way of working was unsustainable—we have also heard that today—and would not ultimately serve the long-term needs of academies. We have heard in detail about that. Sponsors also agree. Dan Moynihan, the chief executive of the multi-sponsor Harris Federation, said in the oral evidence sessions, as many noble Lords will have read: “It makes sense for the Department to have an agency to take care of academies. Clearly the Department was never meant to be a local authority, so we are perfectly happy with that”. There is common ground among us that the department should not end up being the biggest education department in the country.
Time
17:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Viscount EcclesMay I ask just one question? How can it be right to say that the YPLA will be the chosen agency for academies, which I…
Speaker
Viscount EcclesConservative
Quote
May I ask just one question? How can it be right to say that the YPLA will be the chosen agency for academies, which I think is what the noble Baroness said, and not have it in the Bill?
Time
18:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinI think it is in the Bill. The concern that noble Lords are voicing is that academies and academy sponsors are looking…
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
I think it is in the Bill. The concern that noble Lords are voicing is that academies and academy sponsors are looking for a fuller explanation of how the relationship between the Secretary of State, the YPLA and the academies will operate, and more clarity about, for example, how matters would work if there were disagreements between the various parties.
Time
18:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Viscount EcclesMy Lords, I think that the noble Baroness said that it was on the face of the Bill in the form of an enabling possibili…
Speaker
Viscount EcclesConservative
Quote
My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness said that it was on the face of the Bill in the form of an enabling possibility. I think that she went on to say that enabling means enabling; it does not necessarily mean that it will take place. Parliament may well normally expect enabling legislation to come forward in some way in the future, but for a matter as important as this it would be much better if, by Report, some flesh was put on the bones of enabling legislation so that we could see what was intended statutorily.
Time
18:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinMy Lords, I am trying to be extremely helpful and accommodating. I am sure that the work that we will do between now an…
Speaker
Baroness Morgan of DrefelinLabour
Quote
My Lords, I am trying to be extremely helpful and accommodating. I am sure that the work that we will do between now and Report will be as helpful as possible. I hope very much that I will be able to satisfy the noble Viscount. I am very happy to discuss the matter further with him before Report to ensure that that is achieved.
Time
18:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness VermaI thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, obviously supports the academies’ s…
Speaker
Baroness VermaConservative
Quote
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, obviously supports the academies’ success. We all share her concerns about the schools that are still underachieving. That is why we on these Benches believe that all schools should be able to free themselves from local authority control. However, we should remind ourselves that some academies serve underachieving communities and have raised educational attainment in some communities. My noble friend Lady Perry set out fluently the difficulties that academies have faced and the situations that they have managed to turn around in some of our most deprived areas. My noble friend Lord Elton mentioned the difficulties that some academies are already facing in respect of sixth-form provision. As ever, my noble friend Lord Eccles raised the serious technical points that the Bill seems to overlook. I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness’s response. I find it incredibly difficult to understand why the Government believe that academies have to be delivered through the YPLA. I am pleased that the Government will meet representatives from the academies movement tomorrow and I look forward to hearing about the outcome of that meeting. However, I remain thoroughly unconvinced that the Government’s response meets our concerns. I shall read very carefully what the Minister has said but I assure her that if we do not find the government amendments satisfactory we shall return to the relevant amendments on Report. I do not think that anyone on this side of the Committee is convinced by the Government’s arguments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Time
18:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordI move Amendment 156 and speak to Amendments 157, 158, 159 and 160. There are, so to speak, two separate sets of amendm…
Speaker
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
I move Amendment 156 and speak to Amendments 157, 158, 159 and 160. There are, so to speak, two separate sets of amendments within these four amendments, and I wish to speak separately to Amendment 160. Amendments 156 to 159 pick up the theme that I developed when we discussed the YPLA on Monday. Essentially, we talked then about the YPLA being a more friendly consultative body, but it is, of course, an appointed body. At the moment it is appointed largely by the Secretary of State although, as we indicated, we would like to see a wider representation in the membership of that body. The fundamental question behind this issue is whether an appointed body, the YPLA, should have the power to issue directions to elected local authorities. Our amendments seek to ensure that the YPLA is not a dictatorial body but is a consultative, friendly organisation working in partnership with local education authorities. If it needs to issue directions, as distinct from guidance, it must work through the Secretary of State. An elected Minister can tell an elected body what to do. Amendment 159 deals with complaints. Complaints should be directed to the Minister, who can then take action. The purport of these amendments is to make clear that directions should come from the Secretary of State, not the YPLA. Amendment 160 falls into a completely different category and comes from the Association of Colleges. The new system of funding for 16 to 19 provision by local authorities, via sub-regional groups and the Young People’s Learning Agency, could potentially be very complicated and increase the likelihood of delays occurring or genuine mistakes being made. The overall aim of the system must be to ensure that colleges and schools can plan and provide education and training for their students in an efficient and timely manner. When we discussed the first group of amendments this afternoon, we talked about the complications that will arise from the number of bodies that a further education college will have to deal with in terms of the YPLA, local authorities and others. However, colleges already deal with a large number of authorities. They deal with the HEFCE and employers with regard to apprenticeships, so they are dealing with a large number of different funding streams, and I greatly admire the way in which they do so. However, over the past few years the main funding stream for most further education colleges was undoubtedly the LSC. There have been problems with LSC funding because the colleges’ academic year starts in September but the financial year runs from August to the following August. Therefore, by the end of July, you need to have your budget in place for the following financial year. The aim has always been to get the final figures from the LSC by the end of March or the beginning of April. However, over the past few years these figures have not come through in many cases until the very end of July. Even when colleges are dealing with only one funding authority, the LSC, they are experiencing great difficulty in getting their future budgets agreed. Negotiations often continue right through to 31 July. The new system will be even more complicated. To date, colleges have negotiated only with the LSC. I have received a letter from the chief executive of the Association of Colleges. The letter states: “To remind you this is the process through which funding will reach Colleges”. It is a seven-step process. The letter continues: “The YPLA will help local authorities to carry out their new responsibilities by developing a national framework to support planning and commissioning, ensuring coherence of plans, managing the national funding formula and providing strategic data and analysis. Each local authority will assess supply and demand for 16-19 provision in their area. Each local authority will then take this assessment to one of the sub-regional groups of local authorities, of which it will be a member. This group will agree the commissioning plans for their sub-region. The plans will then be agreed by a regional planning group which will scrutinise the local plans and ensure they are coherent, can be funded within the regional budget and will deliver the 14-19 entitlement. Regional Government Offices ‘will contribute to discussion of regional priorities and support local authorities in undertaking their new responsibilities. They are, and will continue to be, a conduit for information to flow from sub-regional groupings … to DCSF’”. That came from a parliamentary Answer on 18 December last year. “They will also have a role in assessing performance of local authorities. The YPLA will check these plans to ensure that they cohere and are affordable and then fund local authorities appropriately. The local authorities will then pass the funding to Colleges”. That is the seventh step. Whereas to date you are negotiating with the local LSC and it is finding it difficult enough to agree your budget for the coming 12 months, in the future you are not only going to have to negotiate with your local authority, you are going to have to go through the local authority to the YPLA, the YPLA is going to have to go to the sub-regional groups, the sub-regional groups are going to have to go to the regional groups and the regional groups are going to have to cohere with the government offices. They are then going up to the YPLA and will have to be checked at the YPLA, and then it all comes back down to local authorities. When I was teaching economics, one of the courses I taught was about the Soviet Union and the Soviet economy. It was in the old days of the 1970s and 1980s, and there was an organisation known as Gosplan. One of the problems that the Soviet Union faced in those days was that every decision taken locally had to go all the way up to the top at the Moscow office of Gosplan and then come all the way down again. The process took a very long time. Perhaps one sees this today in some of the consultants who are around in the further education field. There were a lot of fixers, whose job it was to speed the process along and to try to make sure that these things actually worked in the end. We all know that the Soviet Union collapsed partly because of the sheer inefficiency of its economy. It is quite reasonable that colleges should wish to have some way in which, if they are not getting the information that they need out of their local authorities, they can go directly to the YPLA. Amendment 160 says precisely that: “A further education college may inform the YPLA if it is satisfied that a local education authority is failing, or is likely to fail, to perform its duty under section 15ZA of the Education Act 1996”. That is really saying that it should be able to talk directly to the YPLA rather than necessarily waiting until the local authority comes back. The Government must recognise how difficult it is for organisations such as further education colleges, which do not have assurances. The Government have given the university sector a three-year forward assurance on its funding. The further education college does not have these assurances. It has to negotiate its funding, because it is being commissioned by a lot of different organisations. The core 16-to-19 function will now come from local authorities, and they will be the key commissioning agents. This will be a huge block of money for the college sector. The rest of the sector, which is demand-led, is totally uncertain. It comes through employers and individuals who decide whether they are going to attend courses at that college. There is gross uncertainty about that, and the college has to make best guesses as to how much it will be attracting people to courses in the following year. Colleges are enjoined to break even, as are all public sector organisations. It is very difficult to break even in those circumstances. The amendments say, first, that if there is an elected authority, direction should come from the Secretary of State not from the YPLA and, secondly, that the Government should have some sympathy with the college sector and allow it to be able to talk directly to the YPLA if it thinks that the local authority is not fulfilling its function. I beg to move.
Time
18:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord EltonMy Lords, before we get into the general debate, it was not just Gosplan that had a system like that. It was the same u…
Speaker
Lord EltonConservative
Quote
My Lords, before we get into the general debate, it was not just Gosplan that had a system like that. It was the same under the ancien regime in France. De Tocqueville has in almost his first chapter an illustration of how that went wrong, by giving an account of a curé who applied locally for the replacement of a tile on the roof of his chancel. When the answer came back, the roof had fallen in. It would be a great pity if the Government were to attempt that sort of retribution.
Time
18:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord LucasMy Lords, when Hansard comes out tomorrow, I shall cut out the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and pin i…
Speaker
Lord LucasConservative
Quote
My Lords, when Hansard comes out tomorrow, I shall cut out the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and pin it on my wall so that I at last have an explanation of how the system is proposed to work. Listening to her, not being a historian, I was reminded of a recipe for cooking capercaillie, where you go through endless stages to remove the overpowering stench of pine needles and to render the incredibly tough flesh delicate. The last step is always to throw it in the dustbin.
Time
18:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Viscount EcclesMy Lords, briefly, I will come back to Amendments 156, 157 and 158. I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Sh…
Speaker
Viscount EcclesConservative
Quote
My Lords, briefly, I will come back to Amendments 156, 157 and 158. I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said. The YPLA is an entirely inappropriate body to have the power of direction. It is doubly inappropriate because it would be an unelected body giving directions to elected bodies. Since it would not issue a direction unless it had a memorandum from the Secretary of State saying that it was all right to do so, I do not think you should send the boy in to do the man’s job. If this amendment were brought to a vote, I would support the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, with great enthusiasm.
Time
18:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Hunt of WirralIt is rather difficult to follow those four speeches. It has been an interesting journey through the history books and…
Speaker
Lord Hunt of WirralConservative
Quote
It is rather difficult to follow those four speeches. It has been an interesting journey through the history books and the cookery books. I agree with my noble friend Lord Eccles that in many ways we all agree with the noble Baroness, because she has given the Government a real test. I am slightly bemused, if I can add to the questions, about how the YPLA is going to satisfy itself that a local education authority is failing or is likely to fail. Clause 65 does not give us much indication of the process. I agree with the noble Baroness that, as she has quoted from the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, the whole process seems to be lengthy, complex and difficult, with an over-riding question mark over whether the YPLA is the correct body to be saying whether a local authority is failing. I wonder whether the Minister could explain how all this is supposed to work. Presumably, he is the author of all this. He may immediately seek to disown it and pass the buck to one of his ministerial colleagues; but presumably Clause 65 is all his idea. He owes it to this House to explain, first, why, but, above all, why the YPLA. I agree with my noble friends Lord Eccles, Lord Lucas and Lord Elton that it does not seem to make sense. He must have thought through how it is all going to operate. The initial amendments mean that those at the forefront of delivering the services should be able to inform the YPLA if they think that the local education authority is not up to the mark. However, I am particularly concerned about the worries expressed by the Association of Colleges. There is no doubt that colleges should have the right to appeal directly to the YPLA; but again we have the overriding question: why the YPLA?
Time
18:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteMy Lords, I particularly support Amendment 160, although the other amendments reinforce the considerable concern that t…
Speaker
Baroness Howe of IdlicoteCrossbench
Quote
My Lords, I particularly support Amendment 160, although the other amendments reinforce the considerable concern that there is on the matter. The Association of Colleges has informed a number of noble Lords about its concerns, and has done so in a very reasonable and tolerant way, particularly with regard to Amendment 160. It says that some local education authorities will be able to cope with all this, and will not have the problems that we anticipate in a number of other authorities. However, the association’s point is that if something goes wrong, there will be a need for a much speedier process. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, pointed out, it will be crucial—especially in these economic times, which will reinforce the problem—that colleges get the funding in time to continue to provide the courses that have been approved. I very much support this. The Association of Colleges has made an excellent case in the detail it has set out, which was delivered to us today and referred to on Monday. It sets out the case beautifully of why the whole thing has become incredibly bureaucratic. Whether or not the whole system is redesigned, we all believe that there is a big challenge to the Government to think through the whole process.
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Young of Norwood GreenMy Lords, I, too, have enjoyed the journey through history. The YPLA was gaining in powers as the debate went on—a mixt…
Speaker
Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
Quote
My Lords, I, too, have enjoyed the journey through history. The YPLA was gaining in powers as the debate went on—a mixture of the Supreme Soviet and the ancien regime. I can reassure the House that the Supreme Soviet disposed of its ancien regime, which solved that problem. Of course we do not want to recreate that monster, or try to reproduce Gosplan, because we know that that would inevitably result in failure. Amendments 156, 157 and 158 concern the powers of the YPLA to intervene where a local authority is failing in its commissioning duty. I believe that there is agreement on all sides that, while we would expect that in the overwhelming majority of cases local authorities will fulfil their duties effectively, we need a backstop to protect the interests of young people and providers in case any authorities run into difficulties. Sometimes, as we know, local authorities do run into difficulties—a fact that has been mentioned here this evening. It is most appropriate that this power sits with the Young People’s Learning Agency. The YPLA will be involved already in supporting local authorities and subregional groups through the commissioning process, and so is closer to where decisions are made than the Secretary of State. To ensure that local authorities have a clear understanding of the circumstances under which they may be subject to intervention, and that there is appropriate oversight at a ministerial level to ensure that no question of a democratic deficit can arise—I know that that concerns some noble Lords—we have built in a range of safeguards governing the use of the power. The YPLA is required by Clause 71 to produce an interventions statement. There must be consultation on this statement with all appropriate bodies, which will include local authorities. The statement must be approved by the Secretary of State. Furthermore, under Clause 65(4), the YPLA must consult the Secretary of State before exercising its power of intervention under Clause 65. It is not a case of some kind of semi-supreme soviet riding roughshod over local authorities on a whim: there must be an interventions statement and, before the YPLA can exercise that power, it must consult the Secretary of State. On Amendments 159 and 160, we are committed to ensuring that colleges and providers have a route of appeal against decisions that affect them. Details of the process will be included in the national commissioning framework. We are committed to ensuring a process that addresses all concerns in a timely fashion, and I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that we are working with stakeholders, including the Association of Colleges, to ensure that the administrative processes reflect the requirements of all those involved. We anticipate that, while in the first instance appeals will be dealt with as close as possible to where the decision took place—that is, with local authorities, and with suitable escalation routes set out—the YPLA will be aware of any appeals made. It is not the case that the colleges will have no right of access to the YPLA, which will provide a facilitating role, including proportionate support and challenge where appropriate. There is understandable concern among some people involved in the commissioning process about the level of complexity. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for reminding us that, despite the dire predictions of doom and open warfare from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, colleges currently negotiate with a number of different authorities. We have no desire to make this more difficult. However, to ensure that there is timely agreement on budgets—something that understandably concerns the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—we are committed to issuing figures to providers by the end of March. We are committed to setting budgets by 31 March each year. While the timing of the new system is still being consulted on with partners, nothing suggests that the 31 March deadline cannot be met. While it is true that there are seven stages—I thought that we were going through the Creation as the noble Baroness recounted them—a number of those processes will be conducted in parallel. I have already addressed the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about whether colleges can get information from the YPLA if they are not getting it from their local authority. The answer is that they can. Colleges are the source of the data that the YPLA will use to inform the local authority commissioning plans, so they will have access to them. I hope that I have given sufficient assurances. I cannot confirm the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I was the author of all of this—I am far too modest to claim that. However, as part of the supporting cast, I support the proposals. We have endeavoured to satisfy the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I hope that, on the basis of these assurances, she will withdraw the amendment.
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordMy Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but, if I may say so, in both cases he misses the point. The key issue ex…
Speaker
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but, if I may say so, in both cases he misses the point. The key issue expressed in the first four amendments is not that there is any objection to the fact that there may be an intervention process—we recognise that there must be a fallback position and are not objecting to Clause 65 as such. What the amendments are saying is that an elected authority with the power of the electorate behind it is the appropriate one. There are many procedures for consultation with the Secretary of State—you must issue an intervention statement and so forth—so it is right that the Secretary of State, who has the legitimacy of being elected, issues a directive to an elected authority. The YPLA is just an appointed authority—this is the point. The Minister’s answer does not address that. It is a minor thing. The YPLA has to go to the Secretary of State and justify issuing a directive. The Secretary of State has to say, “Okay, you can issue a directive”, so we might as well have the Secretary of State issuing the directive. It is a matter of constitutional legitimacy, not a question of whether or not there should be intervention. In relation to the colleges, again it seems that they seek to cut through the bureaucracy. There may be occasions when local authorities miscalculate the figures, do not commission enough provision; or when there is genuine disagreement about funding. Colleges will then have to go through the normal local government complaints procedures if they wish to appeal against decisions. As we know, such procedures can be lengthy and bureaucratic, and it is important that funding is in place for September. The Minister says that the Government are committed to the budget being set by 31 March. The LSC is also committed to that, but the budget is often not in place by 31 July. How can you guarantee, when you have this complicated procedure, that your budget can get set? This is a mild amendment. Having read Martin Doel’s letter I am surprised at how mild it is. All it asks is to enable colleges to talk directly to the YPLA to sort out an issue. I shall go away and contemplate the Minister’s totally inadequate answers.
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord EltonIf the Government are minded to have a right of appeal, why do they object to putting it in the Bill but wish to leave…
Speaker
Lord EltonConservative
Quote
If the Government are minded to have a right of appeal, why do they object to putting it in the Bill but wish to leave it to the national commissioning framework? The other thing that puzzles me is: in the sequential process described by the noble Baroness of A having to tell B, having to discuss with C, having to tell D and having to discuss with E, how can those stages be carried out in parallel?
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Young of Norwood GreenI regret that the noble Baroness felt that my answer was totally inadequate, but I believe that it addressed the concer…
Speaker
Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
Quote
I regret that the noble Baroness felt that my answer was totally inadequate, but I believe that it addressed the concern. Perhaps it hinges on the question of requiring the YPLA to produce an intervention statement. There has to be consultation with all the appropriate bodies on the statement. I thought that that would be welcome. After all, the noble Baroness complained about the overweening power of the YPLA, and that consultation on the statement should include local authorities. The intervention statement has to be approved by the Secretary of State. We are setting the backdrop, which is important. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was concerned that I had indicated that somehow the YPLA must consult the Secretary of State before exercising its powers of intervention and that that was merely some perfunctory process. Clearly it is appropriate that the YPLA should make the first assessment on whether intervention is necessary as it is closer to what is going on. But consulting the Secretary of State is certainly not a perfunctory process before it can exercise its powers of intervention. I hoped to convey that it is an important part of the process, not just a matter of, “We are consulting and expect you to agree”. We believe that we have involved the Secretary of State in the important decision. The noble Baroness is right to stress the importance of involving elected rather than appointed representatives.
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Hunt of WirralI am finding it very difficult to understand the Minister’s argument. Amendment 156 merely rewrites subsection (2) so t…
Speaker
Lord Hunt of WirralConservative
Quote
I am finding it very difficult to understand the Minister’s argument. Amendment 156 merely rewrites subsection (2) so that instead of saying that the “YPLA may give directions”, it proposes that the Secretary of State, on a recommendation from the YPLA, may give directions. I am not sure why the noble Baroness, the Minister, is objecting to that. The Minister seems to be saying that it is right that an elected official should make the decision, but under the clause it is not the Secretary of State who makes the decision. It states: “The YPLA may give directions”. If the Minister were to address that point we may make a little more progress.
Time
18:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Young of Norwood GreenApart from the worrying change of gender that I achieved during that contribution, I never felt a thing. I did somethin…
Speaker
Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
Quote
Apart from the worrying change of gender that I achieved during that contribution, I never felt a thing. I did something similar to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, last night, so it may be something in the water. We think that we have the balance right but we want to address the concerns. We will reflect on the point that has been made as I hate being described as totally inadequate. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, raised two points. We believe that the detail of the process is appropriate for the national commissioning framework. In relation to his second point on the stages, I am assured that some of the processes will take place in parallel. Rather than trying to explain the parallel process we shall include it when we write to noble Lords. We have to address the genuine concerns. We do not want a process that is overcomplicated or one in which authorities cannot meet the deadlines, with the impact that that will have on colleges. We have to bottom it out, and when we write to noble Lords, we hope to give some reassurance on the nature of the process which will not reflect Gosplan or even the Ancien Regime. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Time
18:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Viscount EcclesI shall try to be helpful. I shall speak about directions several times in subsequent amendments. Directions raise cons…
Speaker
Viscount EcclesConservative
Quote
I shall try to be helpful. I shall speak about directions several times in subsequent amendments. Directions raise constitutional issues; they are not issues of process only. Directions are not subject to any parliamentary procedure, and when given people must comply. There is no room for manoeuvre and directions classically are not the subject of negotiation. If the Bill team, with whom I have had exchanges about directions, were to look at Craies and Bennion for the constitutional position of directions, they will find that they have been used for administrative matters, such as Treasury accounting and other matters of that sort, and as a power of last resort, which the Minister referred to. But it has to be last resort, and not in the middle of a normal set of transactions if we are to stay somewhere near the constitutional precedent. It would be interesting to have a series of precedents about non-departmental public bodies having the right to give directions with which local authorities must comply, but I am not aware of such precedents, and what is included in the Bill is very unusual if not itself a precedent.
Time
18:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordI am grateful to the Minister for being prepared to take away this first batch of amendments. It is an issue of constit…
Speaker
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
I am grateful to the Minister for being prepared to take away this first batch of amendments. It is an issue of constitutional legitimacy and not a question of objecting to the procedures. We can ponder on these things. It strikes me that they are mild amendments. On Amendment 160, will the Minister reflect on whether we need some means in which a college can try to short-circuit what have been long-winded procedures of one sort or another? As I said, we will reflect. The Minister does not need to write to us further about the procedures. We have had masses of paper about how the YPLA will operate and we do not need the Bill team to write us yet another set of letters. We will ponder on it further, because the AOC is legitimately concerned. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Time
18:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord LucasMy Lords, I want to raise a small question about the interpretation of Clause 73(4). There is a very helpful section in…
Speaker
Lord LucasConservative
Quote
My Lords, I want to raise a small question about the interpretation of Clause 73(4). There is a very helpful section in the guidance notes, which state: “Under subsection (4) directions under this clause may not relate to the funding of activities carried on by particular individuals or bodies. For example, the Secretary of State could not require the YPLA to fund a particular provider to deliver a particular course in respect of a young person”. That is understood, but the subsection itself concludes, “in respect of a particular person or persons”, so my question is: where does that place the boundary? Clearly, a direction to give more money to Hills Road Sixth Form College would be prohibited, but is a direction to give more money to sixth-form colleges generally prohibited? If that is allowed, is a requirement to give more money to sixth-form colleges in Cambridge allowed? If that is allowed, what about giving more money to sixth-form colleges in Winchester, of which there is only one? Then the Secretary of State could give a direction that goes against the subsection. The logic of the subsection seems to flow ever outwards, so that there is no limit to the prohibition that it places on the Secretary of State in giving directions, unless he directs something that has no implications for any class of providers. It is not only individual providers or individuals who are referred to, he cannot give a direction that relates to a class. For instance, he cannot say that more money should be provided to support the international baccalaureate, because that is, in a way, designating a set of colleges and therefore falls foul of the subsection. It is a technical question: where does the boundary lie? Under the clause, where is the boundary between what the Secretary of State is allowed to do and what he is not?
Time
18:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord EltonI put the question in quite a different light. It concerns not different classes of provision, but different classes of…
Speaker
Lord EltonConservative
Quote
I put the question in quite a different light. It concerns not different classes of provision, but different classes of recipient. The question is whether people have to achieve a certain age before they could study a subject. It may be intended to eliminate a particular individual, but it appears to limit any general direction such as that.
Time
18:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord LucasBut, my Lords, I think that paragraph 59 of the notes covers the corporate as well as the individual use of person.
Speaker
Lord LucasConservative
Quote
But, my Lords, I think that paragraph 59 of the notes covers the corporate as well as the individual use of person.
Time
18:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord EltonIt could do.
Speaker
Lord EltonConservative
Quote
It could do.
Time
18:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Young of Norwood GreenMy Lords, the clause gives the Secretary of State powers to direct the YPLA. He may give the YPLA directions containing…
Speaker
Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
Quote
My Lords, the clause gives the Secretary of State powers to direct the YPLA. He may give the YPLA directions containing objectives at any time when it has either failed to discharge a duty imposed under this or any other Act or has acted or proposes to act unreasonably with respect to the performance of any of its functions. He may give it other directions about its performance. In giving directions, the Secretary of State may set time limits within which they are to be complied. Directions may also relate to the management of the YPLA. Directions may not relate to the funding of activities carried on by individuals or individual bodies, so the Secretary of State cannot require the YPLA to fund a particular provider to deliver a particular course in respect of a young person. That is to ensure that the YPLA can retain responsibility and accountability for individual funding decisions, without influence from the Secretary of State. The clause is essential to enable the Secretary of State to exercise an appropriate level of control over the YPLA, as one of his agencies—surely an important point—and is a consistent provision across many NDPBs. To address all the points made: yes, on direction to a type of college, and no to individual colleges. I commend Clause 73.
Time
18:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord EltonWhat the noble Lord has said agrees exactly with what is in the Explanatory Notes, but it does not seem to agree precis…
Speaker
Lord EltonConservative
Quote
What the noble Lord has said agrees exactly with what is in the Explanatory Notes, but it does not seem to agree precisely with what is in the Bill.
Time
18:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord LucasMy Lords, at least we are closer to a starting point. The Minister says that classes of college can be allowed. As I sa…
Speaker
Lord LucasConservative
Quote
My Lords, at least we are closer to a starting point. The Minister says that classes of college can be allowed. As I said, if the class of college is sixth-form colleges in Winchester, that is a class of one, so the Secretary of State is thereby giving a direction concerning an individual college, an individual person. That is my difficulty: if we allow the direction to apply to classes, a class can consist of one, so he can get round the prohibition by defining a class of one. If we do not allow classes, an enormous area of discretion is off-limits to the Secretary of State. I do not require an answer now, but I would very much like an answer in writing.
Time
18:45
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord De MauleyMy Lords, this is one in a series of probing amendments designed to elicit from the Minister the reason why the chief e…
Speaker
Lord De MauleyConservative
Quote
My Lords, this is one in a series of probing amendments designed to elicit from the Minister the reason why the chief executive of skills funding has been enshrined in legislation, but the Skills Funding Agency as an organisation has not. We simply want to understand the Government’s reasoning why, while the Learning and Skills Council was set up as an NDPB, and the YPLA is to be accorded that status, the Skills Funding Agency is not. The 157 Group, for example, has expressed a desire to see the Skills Funding Agency established as an NDPB. It is worried that it is highly unusual for a funding agency not to have an independent board to oversee the progress and accountability of its work. Its concerns are that the body will be too closely tied to government and that any serious matters will have to be raised straight to the level of a government department. Therefore, instead of being an independent CEO, the chief executive will simply be a cog within, and subordinate to, the machinery of government. Does this not worry the Minister? Furthermore, as insufficient detail is included in the Bill, it would be useful if the Minister could explain what he envisages the structure of the SFA will be, what he considers to be its main functions and how it will carry them out. We need to probe this area because it was discovered in another place that the Government had indeed considered giving the SFA this status. It would be useful to learn from the Minister the reasons why this approach was rejected. The constitution, legal status and board of the SFA are not included in the Bill. Is the Minister unconcerned that this means that the structure can be altered on the whim of a Minister without any reference to Parliament? In addition, perhaps the Minister could inform your Lordships of the current practical position of the SFA. Is the senior management team in place? Could he give us details of any shadow running of the SFA, which is currently happening with the YPLA? We are concerned that the closing date for applications to head the SFA has long since passed. Can he confirm that no appointment has yet been announced? If that is correct, can he explain why, especially in view of the fact that there is already a chief executive of the YPLA? It seems that operations are perhaps running rather behind schedule. Does the Minister have any details of the timetable that he can share with your Lordships? Can he at least tell us how many months behind schedule the SFA is running at the moment?
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)Because this is a clause stand part debate, we have no Motion to move and it is for any noble Lord to speak.
Speaker
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)Crossbench
Quote
Because this is a clause stand part debate, we have no Motion to move and it is for any noble Lord to speak.
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordMy Lords, our names are not attached to these amendments or to the clause stand part, but we have a great deal of sympa…
Speaker
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
My Lords, our names are not attached to these amendments or to the clause stand part, but we have a great deal of sympathy with them. Although the Skills Funding Agency’s budget is smaller than that of the YPLA—it is roughly £3.5 billion, whereas the YPLA has a budget of about £7 billion—it is still a very substantial budget. The situation is very odd. For 16 to 19 education, and probably 14 to 19 education, we are setting up the YPLA, which is to be an NDPB, have its own separate board and report directly to Parliament. Higher education is also run by an NDPB—HEFCE—which has a separate board and reports directly to Parliament. The Skills Funding Agency will deal with adult education and will run four separate agencies of substantial importance: the Train to Gain service, the Adult Advancement and Careers Service, the National Apprenticeship Service and the National Employer Service. They are not mentioned in the Bill, which picks up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, that we know remarkably little about the running of the SFA. In terms of transparency and accountability, I find this a difficult issue. On the one hand, it can be argued that the Minister has to answer directly for the SFA. It is going to be set up as a next-steps agency run by a civil servant with a large number of people under him. It will have more people than the YPLA, which is going to have only 500 allocated to it from the LSC; the SFA will have 1,500 allocated to it. It is a substantial organisation being run by a civil servant, answerable directly to the Minister and with considerable powers, which are detailed in the Bill. It will run the whole of our adult education and training services and the adult apprenticeship service. How is the SFA going to be made more accountable? We have done away with the Adult Learning Committee that was established under the LSC. One advantage of the SFA having NDPB status is that there would be a board behind the chief executive representing the many areas in the adult skills world. Local government, the sector skills councils, employers and regional initiatives could all be represented. The anomaly is that elsewhere in the education world there are NDPBs with advisory boards that are, to some extent, answerable directly. With the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the LSC, the tradition was that they were set up as NDPBs, but now we suddenly break with that tradition and have this organisation with substantial functions that is only answerable to Parliament through the Minister. Our party’s vision is very different from that of the Conservative Party. On the whole, we feel that with the adult world, and given the blurring of boundaries between higher education and further education, the sensible thing is to expand HEFCE to include all adult education. The name that we have given to it is the council for adult skills and higher education—abbreviated, that becomes CASH, which is perhaps appropriate since we are still advocating that there should be no tuition fees. However, we believe that there is a lot behind these amendments and we have a lot of sympathy with them.
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Young of Norwood GreenMy Lords, many questions have been raised in today’s debate. I have been struck by how much common ground there is betw…
Speaker
Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
Quote
My Lords, many questions have been raised in today’s debate. I have been struck by how much common ground there is between us on the need to reform our post-19 education and training system. There is general recognition that the current system of funding education and training requires refocusing, with employers playing a leading role in identifying what skills are needed locally, regionally and nationally and designing the necessary qualifications, and with funding following individual and employer choice. This requires a more demand-led approach, where funding is allocated to colleges and training providers based on the choices of individuals and employers and on wider local, regional and national skill needs. The Skills Funding Agency will be one part of a new skills landscape in which the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, sector skills councils, RDAs, the sub-regional economic and skills boards and local authorities will all play their part in determining the skill needs of the nation. In making funding decisions, the chief executive of skills funding will be required to take account of advice from these bodies through guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 115. Colleges and other providers will also continue to have a central role in informing and shaping the policies that will drive skills forward. At a national level, colleges will continue to be represented on the ministerial standing group and the FE Reform and Performance Programme Board and will directly inform the development of the policies and programmes. At a regional level, colleges and providers will be consulted by the RDAs on the development of the regional skills strategies, which will be integral to the single integrated regional strategies to be developed by RDAs with local authority leader boards, as proposed in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill. At a local level, we will expect colleges and providers to engage with learners and employers in their local communities and to explore new and innovative ways to meet their skill needs. The best colleges are already doing this. The system that we are setting up will free colleges and providers from the constraints of rigid funding agreements, enabling them to provide the courses that students and employers want. The core question in this debate is a narrow one: should the SFA be an NDPB or an agency? Amendment 171, in the name of the Conservative Front Bench, proposes an NDPB. Our overriding aim has been to ensure greater democratic accountability. In the case of the YPLA, NDPB status is appropriate because that body will exist to provide technical support to local authorities in the delivery of their new duties under the Bill. The key commissioning decisions will be made by local authorities, so democratic accountability is maintained. In the case of the SFA, our preference is for a structure that places a premium on democratic accountability and ensures that Ministers deliver on their responsibilities through the department. Operating as an agency, the Skills Funding Agency will be closer to government, ensuring that it operates within the department’s overall strategic framework. This will enable the chief executive to react much more quickly to changing strategic needs and to contribute to the decision-making process through practical experience of what works and why. If Parliament had agreed to abolish the LSC, we could have established a Skills Funding Agency by purely administrative means using existing powers; we would not have needed Part 4 of the Bill at all. However, we took the view that it was essential to have a robust legislative underpinning for the functions, powers and duties in respect of post-19 education and training, including the responsibility for some £4 billion in funding. These are therefore set out clearly in the Bill, vested in the chief executive of skills funding. We also wanted to put the entitlement to an apprenticeship into legislation. This approach also enabled us to include a clear statutory requirement for the chief executive to report to Parliament through an annual report—I thought that that would be welcomed—which will set out how the chief executive has performed the functions of the office for the financial year, and for his accounts to be laid before Parliament and subject to certification by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Select Committees will also be able to require the chief executive of skills funding to give evidence and respond to recommendations made by the committee. I understand the concerns of colleges and the 157 Group about the status of the new body. There are two main worries. The first is that agency status may somehow lead to the politicisation of funding decisions. However, I think that that is to misunderstand the nature of the day-to-day funding decisions that the SFA will take. In a demand-led system, it will matter less where the money sits, because funding will follow the choices of learners and employers. It will be the role of the SFA to ensure that this new system operates effectively so that it really does enable individual learners and employers to access courses of their choice and so that the skills needs identified by the UKCES, sector skills councils, RDAs and local authorities are met. It is therefore demand-led. Indeed, such a system is inherently less vulnerable to the sort of political influence about which the colleges have expressed concern. As an additional safeguard, however, we are creating the SFA as an agency and naming in legislation the chief executive on whom the powers and duties rest. We are also making it explicit, through Clause 117(4), that the Secretary of State cannot intervene in individual funding decisions. The second concern is that the voice of colleges and other providers will somehow be lost. However, as I have already made clear, colleges will continue to have a central and influential role to play in the new arrangements and will have a much freer hand to do so. The changes that we are making will mean that, rather than being lost, their voices will be heard louder and more clearly at an earlier stage of policy development. By making the SFA an agency that is part of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, there will be a clear line between the department and the chief executive of skills funding—an area about which colleges and providers have raised concerns in the past.
Time
19:00
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordI have two further questions. The Minister mentioned just now that the SFA was going to be overseen by a small executiv…
Speaker
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
I have two further questions. The Minister mentioned just now that the SFA was going to be overseen by a small executive board. One of the issues that I raised was the whole question of the absence of what in the LSC was called the adult learning committee: an absence, in a sense, of those who would advise the chief executive and who come from the community and represent the community—in so far as a small executive board will be on that small executive board. The other issue that I meant to raise but forgot to in my initial remarks relates to the role that the regions will play in the SFA. In the second paragraph of a letter sent to Jim Brathwaite at SEEDA on 31 July, the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, says very clearly: “I can confirm that I am considering the case for modifying the existing plans for the creation of the Skills Funding Agency … to allow the existing skills landscape to be simplified by making the RDAs the single body with responsibility for producing the regional skills strategy and being the champion and advocate for skills at the regional level. Under this scenario, RDAs would be assigned the lead role in identifying, as part of their wider responsibilities for regional economic development, demand-side needs for skills in their regions. Those needs will be expressed in a regional skills strategy, led by the RDA, which will constitute an investment plan which would become binding on the Skills Funding Agency”. That is a somewhat different scenario from that presented in the Bill. It is a very substantial change. Can the Minister tell us something about it?
Time
19:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Young of Norwood GreenMy Lords, my apologies for speaking not to the noble Baroness’s amendment but to the clause stand part. I think that th…
Speaker
Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
Quote
My Lords, my apologies for speaking not to the noble Baroness’s amendment but to the clause stand part. I think that there were two points. First, how will the FE sector be engaged in the new engagements? We have indicated that there will be a board. We will also continue to need the expert advice of the sector in informing and shaping the policies which will drive skills forward. That will be strengthened in the new system by ensuring that the source of that advice and the body which will implement it are both close to government. Colleges will continue to be represented on the ministerial standing group and the further education reform and performance programme board, as well as through other regular meetings with Ministers. Those discussions will directly inform the development of the policies and programmes which will be implemented by the chief executive, who is very much of that department. On the other question that the noble Baroness raised, I must admit that I need to ask her—
Time
19:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordIt was about the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, sent to Jim Brathwaite at SEEDA, which sets out a very dif…
Speaker
Baroness Sharp of GuildfordLiberal Democrat
Quote
It was about the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, sent to Jim Brathwaite at SEEDA, which sets out a very different view of how the SFA will operate from that which comes over in the Bill and the Explanatory Notes.
Time
19:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Young of Norwood GreenI thank the noble Baroness for reminding me. We anticipate that the RDAs will lead in identifying demand-side need for…
Speaker
Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
Quote
I thank the noble Baroness for reminding me. We anticipate that the RDAs will lead in identifying demand-side need for skills in their regions. This will be reflected in their regional skills strategy, which will be part of the single integrated regional strategy developed with—and I stress this—the local authority leader boards. We envisage that the RDAs will also take responsibility for skills advocacy—including championing and delivering initiatives to raise demand, such as the skills pledge—partnership building, and spearheading multi-agency action in support of employers to identify and resolve mismatches in the supply of skills to meet new employer demand. Responsibility for allocating funds to and managing the relationships with colleges and training providers will rest with the chief executive of skills funding. In doing that, he or she will take into account the national, regional and sub-regional strategies of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, the RDAs and the sub-regional and city partnerships.
Time
19:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord De MauleyMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for her expression of sympathy for our central point in the…
Speaker
Lord De MauleyConservative
Quote
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for her expression of sympathy for our central point in the debate. I think she said that she had not put her name to the clause stand-part Motion, but I am delighted to say that my version of the Marshalled List indicated her support. She helpfully added to what I had said with, among other things, the compelling financial point. The noble Baroness subsequently raised the introduction of the RDAs, and rightly said that this is a substantial change. I think we shall need to come back to it later in these debates. I thank the Minister for his detailed response to this probing amendment. I am not entirely sure that I am convinced by his answer—I will need to read carefully what he has said—but I shall not press the point this evening.
Time
19:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Viscount EcclesMy Lords, this is another probing amendment which will raise questions for clarification. It is, as the Committee will…
Speaker
Viscount EcclesConservative
Quote
My Lords, this is another probing amendment which will raise questions for clarification. It is, as the Committee will see, about a paragraph in this schedule that contains directions. First, why is it necessary to include the power to direct, “other management … and administrative arrangements”, as the schedule does? The chief executive is a civil servant, as we have heard, reporting to the Secretary of State and not to Parliament. He or she will follow departmental rules with which he or she will be familiar, which will cover administrative and management matters. If by some chance they were not being followed, the Secretary of State would have no trouble finding somebody else in the department to point out that this was how it should be done. Why, indeed, is a paragraph on directions needed at all? Financial arrangements will need to be in accordance with Treasury rules, and in all other matters the chief executive reports to the Secretary of State, who sets the agenda and can change it at any time. Directions are a draconian power and should not be used where they are not needed. They are not needed in any way in this schedule, which covers the detailed arrangements for an executive agency’s chief executive. Indeed, Schedule 4 does not indicate any likelihood that the chief executive will be able to act independently. The only thing left is whether there is, somewhere within this arrangement, a need for a back-stop power. I, for one, cannot begin to understand why there ever would be a need for such a power to bring the chief executive into line, because if he or she was not in line I suppose that they would be disappointed—somebody else would be put in their place, and we would only hear about it later. If there is any way in which I could be helped to understand why this paragraph is included in the way that it is, it would be if there were an agency precedent on which Parliament might rely. If so, which agency is it? I beg to move.
Time
19:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord De MauleyMy Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Eccles for his characteristically detailed scrutiny of the Bill. It is quite cle…
Speaker
Lord De MauleyConservative
Quote
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Eccles for his characteristically detailed scrutiny of the Bill. It is quite clear, as he said, that the Secretary of State should not have the power to direct the chief executive of skills funding on every aspect of the day-to-day management and administration of his organisation. We have just been probing the status of the SFA; in Committee in another place, the Minister suggested that by putting duties on the statutory post-holder, we would somehow arrive at a greater separation between him and the Secretary of State. This seems rather unlikely under the current terms of Schedule 4, so I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to my noble friend.
Time
19:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord Young of Norwood GreenMy Lords, Amendment 170 would have the effect of reducing the scope of paragraph 10 of Schedule 4, such that the Secret…
Speaker
Lord Young of Norwood GreenLabour
Quote
My Lords, Amendment 170 would have the effect of reducing the scope of paragraph 10 of Schedule 4, such that the Secretary of State would be able to direct the chief executive of skills funding regarding only the financial arrangements for the office and staff of the chief executive and not the other management and administrative arrangements. This is an important enabling power which allows the Secretary of State to issue directions to the chief executive of skills funding about the financial, management and administrative arrangements of the office of chief executive, should it be necessary to do so. Guidance will be available to the chief executive to ensure that the arrangements for the Skills Funding Agency in these areas are consistent with current Treasury and Cabinet Office guidelines and with public accountability rules on the financial management and administration of a public body. Issuing such guidance is crucial for the effective and proper handling of the considerable sums of public money which will be routed through the Skills Funding Agency as well as for the efficient and effective management of the organisation as a whole. If the Secretary of State considered that the chief executive or a member of his staff failed to adhere to any such guidance, these powers could be used to direct the chief executive to do so—and, as such, although I do not know if they equate to a back-stop, they are certainly powers of last resort. This power is not about seeking to control the chief executive. That individual certainly has powers that include reporting to Parliament through an annual report. It is about ensuring, through the power to give directions, that there are high standards of financial probity and administrative arrangements in place. I turn to a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, who asked why it is necessary to have powers to direct the chief executive officer, who is a civil servant. It is because the chief executive officer has his own legal personality under the Act and is personally responsible for exercising his own statutory powers. I hope, with that explanation, that the noble Viscount will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Time
19:15
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Baroness Perry of SouthwarkAs a former senior civil servant myself, I find this clause to be very unusual. I cannot imagine any occasion on which…
Speaker
Baroness Perry of SouthwarkConservative
Quote
As a former senior civil servant myself, I find this clause to be very unusual. I cannot imagine any occasion on which the chief executive of an agency that is entirely within the Civil Service structure would need directions from a Secretary of State of the kind just described by the Minister. Every senior civil servant knows that they must keep within Treasury rules in terms of finance, so it seems odd to say that the Secretary of State would tell him, because it would be assumed that she or he would do so. As for giving directions, the Secretary of State gives directions to all his or her civil servants because they are there to serve their Ministers. Whether or not they have moved one step away into an agency does not in any sense remove them from the obligation to perform within the rules of the Civil Service, including the Treasury rules, and according to the will and wishes of the Secretary of State. I find it strange that this has been put into the Bill. I understand the motivation, a noble one, to wish to make the agency as freestanding as possible, but in terms of the Secretary of State directing it on the kind of thing the Minister has described, that is simply unnecessary and, I think, a genuine precedent in legislation.
Time
19:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Viscount EcclesI will not prolong this short debate except to say that two big clauses, Clauses 116 and 117, deal with directions, so…
Speaker
Viscount EcclesConservative
Quote
I will not prolong this short debate except to say that two big clauses, Clauses 116 and 117, deal with directions, so I do not seek to take away the whole panoply of the Secretary of State’s ability to give directions to the chief executive. However, I think that we are living in never-never land. An extraordinary piece of advice has come the Minister’s way if what he has told us is how the department really works. It is not how the world of the public sector—which I have been in on a number of occasions—has ever worked. I do not believe that it works this way now. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Time
19:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord EltonPerhaps I may—
Speaker
Lord EltonConservative
Quote
Perhaps I may—
Time
19:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Viscount EcclesI have withdrawn the amendment.
Speaker
Viscount EcclesConservative
Quote
I have withdrawn the amendment.
Time
19:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)I must advise the Committee that I have not yet put the question on withdrawing the amendment, so it is possible for th…
Speaker
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)Crossbench
Quote
I must advise the Committee that I have not yet put the question on withdrawing the amendment, so it is possible for the noble Lord to contribute to the debate.
Time
19:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗
Lord EltonIn that case, I just want to put into the Minister’s mind a disturbing thought. My noble friend said that one could not…
Speaker
Lord EltonConservative
Quote
In that case, I just want to put into the Minister’s mind a disturbing thought. My noble friend said that one could not expect civil servants to do other than what they are told by their Minister, but the advice that he has been given, that a power should go into this Bill to make directions, has come from those civil servants. There may be something afoot in his department that he is not aware of.
Time
19:30
Source
View in Hansard ↗

Show 66 more speechesShow less

EnactedApprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning