Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, first, I apologise for the length of my contribution, which is due, in part, to the fact that I am addressing a wide range of amendments and because there is quite a lot that I need to read in to the record to try to reassure noble Lords that we have listened, and listened carefully. We understand the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that the supportive role that the Young People’s Learning Agency will play in relation to local authorities is not sufficiently represented in the Bill. Taken together, Amendments 69, 71, 72, 77, 78, 79, 82 and 87, which I shall move, make explicit our vision for a collaborative and supportive YPLA. These amendments fulfil commitments that we made in Committee to enhance the YPLA board and to require it, in carrying out its commissioning functions, to have regard to what local authorities are doing. Importantly, Amendment 78 requires the YPLA to secure the Secretary of State’s approval before exercising its direction-making powers under Clause 67. I hope that, given these assurances, the noble Baroness will agree that it is not necessary to specify in the Bill the operational detail set out in Amendment 75. This detail is best set out elsewhere, such as in the YPLA’s remit letter. However, for the record, I am happy to confirm that the design and structure of the YPLA is geared to do what the amendment sets out: to operate the current national funding formula and to issue guidance that will be known as the national commissioning framework; to ensure that where cross-regional or national commissioning is required, it happens smoothly and in a non-bureaucratic way—this will be particularly important for specialist provision, such as that for learners with learning difficulties or land-based colleges that offer courses such as animal husbandry and agricultural studies—crucially, to ensure that local authorities and providers have access to and are using the very latest and accurate information as they develop their commissioning plans to meet the needs of young people; and to play a crucial role in convening the regional planning groups, providing data and analysis on educational and economic trends in a region or nationally. On Amendment 80, I am happy to assure the House that we have been working closely with the Association of Colleges and other partners to address their concerns on ensuring that the process of commissioning is speedy, transparent and fair. We have also listened to their views and those of other provider representatives as to how the expertise in schools, colleges and training providers can help to advise local authorities on what already is available to meet the needs of young people. We intend to include this in our imminent consultation on the national commissioning framework, as well as to amend the draft guidance already issued to help regional planning groups in their thinking. I shall place copies of both these documents in the House Library, when they are published. Our intention is that in the first instance any questions about local commissioning will be resolved through informal discussion between the decision-making body, usually the local authority, and the provider. If this does not resolve the issue, it will be escalated to a different level within the local authority—higher than where the original decision was taken. This escalation and decision should take place within 14 days of receipt of the complaint. We expect the YPLA to be aware of this and, in the spirit of the amendment, want the YPLA to take a proactive stance in ensuring that the commissioning process is working effectively. If a school, college or other provider has any concerns, I would be surprised if they did not communicate those to both the local authority and the YPLA. Again, we shall set this out in the national commissioning framework. There may be a few instances when agreement is not reached by this local resolution process. In these circumstances, the complaint will be escalated, again with escalation and decision within 14 days, to a sub-committee of the regional planning group. We expect that the YPLA will convene and administer that sub-committee and, with the agreement of all parties, chair it. Where the YPLA is not chairing, we expect that the chair should be independent of the commissioning local authority—perhaps another local authority with no vested interest in the outcome. The sub-committee would then make its recommendation to the commissioning local authority. Crucially, to ensure that the process is not held up, we would expect these complaints to be heard and dealt with as quickly as possible, but certainly within 14 days of the complaint being raised. Regarding Amendment 74, the current funding is historical, dating back to pre-incorporation days when the rates for courses and colleges were set locally. We have moved a long way from that position to having a single funding formula, a national process for commissioning and greater stability in the FE sector. We have been tackling the funding gap as fast as resources allow. Since the academic year 2004-05, we have reduced the gap by eight percentage points. I have received some further advice. The latest available figures show that we are on target to achieve a reduction of more than 8 per cent by 2008-09. The percentage difference has been measured by KPMG for each year since 2004, and the figures show a total change of minus 8.6 per cent. Perhaps we can pursue the discrepancy outside the Chamber. I add in passing that over the past 10 years, we have increased funding for further education by around 52 per cent in real terms. That shows our commitment. I will address the deficiency in my previous statement that understandably concerned the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. We remain absolutely committed to reducing the funding gap further, with the clear caveat that this must happen as resources allow. However, we remain committed to reducing the funding gap, and not just sustaining it. We will also make two fresh commitments today. First, the YPLA will set out progress in reducing the funding gap in its annual report. Secondly, further research will be carried out and a report will be placed in the House Library once the 2011-12 year has been completed. I turn to Amendment 67 and the issue of free college meals. The cross-government review of financial support for 16 to 18 year-olds that we announced in the New Opportunities White Paper earlier this year provides us with an opportunity to consider, in the context of raising the participation age, how we can ensure that the support provided for post-16 learners is fair, and that their learning choices are not skewed by the support that is available to them. The review, which is due to report in spring next year, will take account of findings from research that we are undertaking into the barriers that young learners face to staying on in learning. One aspect that the research is looking at is whether the cost of lunch acts as a barrier to participation. We share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that this cost should not influence their decisions. We will shortly issue a public call for evidence to capture the views of stakeholders and young people in order to inform the review. As part of that, we will seek views on the current anomaly that exists in respect of free lunches. A further point of concern was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, concerning the proposed role for regional development agencies in setting skills strategies. I assure her of the central role that local authorities will have in the system. It may be helpful if I set out briefly how the new system will work. Regional development agencies will develop a skills strategy as part of the single regional strategy. This will be approved by a local authority leaders’ board, ensuring that local and regional skills needs are embedded in wider economic development strategies at regional level. They will also take account of the demands of local employers—that is an area that concerns the noble Baroness—of skills needs, and of the demand from young people in their area. The new system is designed around integration and partnership. It collects the needs of the region into one place to provide a single, simple statement of need for all relevant authorities to follow. All partners in the region, including local authorities, will need to be fully involved in the process, and it is in everyone’s interests that full involvement takes place. I turn to Clause 65, which concerned the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I congratulate him on his forensic skills. We accept that subsection (4) is not as clear as we would wish. It is intended to prohibit colleges or other providers from charging 16 to 19 year-olds for education and training funded by the YPLA, but not for education and training funded by anybody else. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the point, and will be happy to bring forward an amendment to clarify this at Third Reading. I hope that, on the basis of these assurances, noble Lords will withdraw their amendments. I beg to move Amendment 67 in my name.