Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment 187. We now move on to education and training for persons aged 19 and over. Clause 84(1) firmly states: ""The Chief Executive must secure the provision of reasonable facilities for … education suitable to the requirements of … persons who are aged 19 or over"." The weasel word "reasonable" emerges. It is one that we are fairly familiar with. The definition of what constitutes "reasonable" in this section repeats the legal formula around reasonable used in the Learning and Skills Act 2000, but it differs from the more demanding duty set out in respect of provision leading to certain qualifications. Clause 85 states: ""The Chief Executive must secure the provision of proper facilities for relevant education"," and the relevant education is listed in Schedule 5, which we will have a look at in the next group of amendments. It relates to education provided free of charge: basic literacy and numeracy, a first full level 2 qualification and a first full level 3 qualification for people aged under 25. The overall effect of the reasonable/proper distinction, which is not made in the education and training of young people, is that most adult learning is pushed to the end of the queue for resources. Clause 191 uses the formulation, ""so far as is reasonably practicable"," in relation to children’s centres for certain of their duties. It does not feel it necessary to use the convoluted wording of "proper" and "reasonable" that we see in this clause. Therefore, in Amendment 186, we have adopted that wording and suggested that in Clause 84 we leave out "reasonable" and insert "proper". Amendment 187 removes subsection (3) and inserts: ""In performing its duties under this section, the Chief Executive must make the best use of its resources and in particular avoid provision that might give rise to disproportionate expenditure"." That seems a reasonable formulation of what we would like to see. When needs are greater than resources, some form of rationing is inevitable. The question is whether this formulation, based on chronological age, is fit for purpose. A public debate to consider alternative or more graduated approaches based on educational needs is required. One alternative might be to consider a broader range of educational entitlements available to all at different ages in the course of their lives. There is much talk about demand-led education. The distinction between pre-19 and post-19 education is that post-19 is now to be demand-led. The demand is to come from employers, through programmes such as Train to Gain and apprenticeships, and from individuals. The problem with providing education for individuals is that at the moment the only individuals for whom it is provided are in essence those who have either no qualifications at all or limited qualifications. We shall look at this again when we come to Clause 85, which says that it is provided only to those aged 19 or under who, ""do not have the qualification in question or one … which appears to the Chief Executive to be at a comparable or higher level"." The Government have had discussions about reintroducing some form of individual learning account. Quite clearly, if we are going to move to a demand-led system for individuals, we have to encourage them to demand education and training in this way, so some sort of encouragement in the form of subsidies of one sort or another might well be necessary. I do not know how far the Government are moving in the direction of the individual learning account, or some equivalent whereby the individual can perhaps bank credits towards courses, but I bring to their attention the recent publication from the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, Learning Through Life. One of its suggestions is that the Government should bring back some equivalent to the individual learning accounts in the form of entitlements that can be built on through life. The institute suggests that there should be a, ""legal entitlement of free access to learning for all who need it to acquire basic skills"." The Government are providing this. NIACE also suggests that there should be a, ""financial entitlement to a minimum level of qualification needed to be able to play a full contributing part in society"," and a, ""‘good practice’ entitlement to learning leave as an occupational benefit to be developed flexibly and over time as part of mainstream employment conditions"." This suggestion—that there should be what some people call a learning bank into which the Government, employers and the individual contribute and which can build up over time and be used to help to fund the individual—is very important. My amendments highlight the distinction between "reasonable" and "proper". It is hard that adult education is being pushed to the sidelines by this Government and that we have very limited provision. I beg to move.