My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his very positive response and thank him for it. The three issues that concerned me included two issues of equity, one of which was the disparity over school meals. I am glad that he has given an assurance that, within the framework of the review that is taking place, there will be specific consideration of the meals issue. I hope the Government will go beyond wondering whether the issue is a barrier to participation in colleges. It seems to me that, in so far as they are continuing to provide free school meals for young people in schools, it is logical for that same provision to be made within the college sector. If, however, they decide that, within the general framework of support for young people, free meals are no longer provided once they are 16 and that there are other means of supporting them, then that should apply across the board. It is important that there should be equivalence of support rather than that those young people who move on to colleges should face such a barrier.
In relation to the funding gap, I have some slightly different figures provided for me by the Association of Colleges, which also came from KPMG. KPMG seems to be doing a double act between the ministry and the Association of Colleges on this one, satisfying each of their clients with different sets of figures. Again, I am glad to get on the record a clear commitment from the Government that they are trying to reduce that funding gap, as far as resources allow, that the YPLA will set out in an annual report what progress has been made, and that a report will be placed in the Library of this House and, I take it, the other place. I am well satisfied with the Government’s answer on those two issues of equity.
In relation to Amendment 80 and the process of what colleges and schools do if they find the local authorities are not moving as fast as they would like them to, it still seems a rather complicated process. Nevertheless, it is one that provides for reconciliation and, as a 14-day limit has been put on the receipt of complaints, with a bit of luck, by the end of July when the colleges need to settle their budgets, some kind of agreement will have been reached. Therefore, I am happy to leave that.
In relation to my Amendment 75, I am still sad that the Government are not prepared to put the functions in the Bill. I know how reluctant parliamentary counsel is to move in this direction and the assurance that they will be writ large in the remit letter is good to have. We shall see how far this goes. Again, I am pleased to have the assurance that, within the functioning of RDAs, local authorities will play some part. My worry is that the tone of the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, sent to Jim Braithwaite—it was inclined to say that the RDA would develop the skills strategy and it would be binding on the SFA—was a little top-down and dictatorial. It is very important that these processes are not top-down but bottom-up, particularly because, as I mentioned in Committee, some of these regions are extraordinarily large. I come from the south-east region, which is huge. What is happening in one part of it does not apply in another. I instanced the fact that what is happening in Thanet is totally different from what is happening in Guildford, the part that I live in. We really need to work sub-regionally rather than regionally. It is very important at a local level—and we talked a lot about this at an earlier point—that employers, colleges, schools, local authorities and, if necessary, the sector skills councils can play their part in helping to formulate the skills strategies.
Although I know the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, does not think much of the amendments put forward by the Government, which were largely based on amendments I put forward in Committee, I am very grateful to the Government for heeding them. They make the YPLA a slightly more independent body than it might otherwise be, which I do not think the opposition Benches are pleased about. If it is to exist, we on these Benches feel that it should have a degree of independence but that it should work in partnership with local authorities with a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach. I thank the Government for what they have given us and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 67 withdrawn.
Schedule 2 : LEA functions: minor and consequential amendments
Amendment 68
Schedule 2 : LEA functions: minor and consequential amendments
Amendment 68
Moved by
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 2 November 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
714 c93-4 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:41:26 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_590793
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_590793
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_590793