Further Education and Training Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 14 June 2007.

New Clause 1

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 2 —Intervention: Wales.

Government amendments Nos. 4 to 6 and 3.

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

It is a pleasure for us to reassemble in Committee. I am sure that I express the collective wish of the Committee when I say that I hope to continue with the rate of progress that we saw on Tuesday.

I am pleased to introduce the Government new clauses and Government amendments. More than £11 billion a year of public investment throughout England and Wales reflects the importance of the further education system to individuals in helping fundamentally to change their lives. It also reflects the importance to employers and the nation of providing the skills that are vital to secure a successful and vibrant economy. Such investment must be protected in the interest of learners and the public purse.

In the past six years, we have seen significant improvements. Success rates are up by 20 percentage points—a fantastic rate of progress. In the current inspection cycle, more than 90 per cent. of colleges inspected so far have been graded satisfactory or better. That is significant progress, but we need to go further.

The policy intention in Wales is to raise the bar for quality in FE provision by 2010, with 65 per cent. or more of FE colleges gaining inspection grade 2 or above. We are introducing proposals that will enable Welsh Ministers to initiate remedial action in relation to an institution in the FE sector in certain prescribed circumstances, such as when there is evidence that the provider is failing to meet the needs of its learners or is performing significantly less well than might be expected.

In England, we have had Sir Andrew Foster’s report and our “Further Education” White Paper. The Bill will help us to take the action needed to continue to transform the FE system. Nowhere is there a clearer demonstration of that transformation than in our intention to ensure that there is sustainable development and improvement in provision. During the debates in another place, Baroness Morris said that

“we are not against rigour or driving up standards.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 February 2007; Vol. 689, c. 1530.]

We want to go further than that. The Government intend to ensure year-on-year improvements in the available provision through a robust intervention strategy that will provide the “ultimate deterrent” referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) during Second Reading.

As well as supporting colleges and providers to develop and improve, we will ensure that any pockets of underperformance in the FE system are tackled quickly, robustly and fairly. In saying that, let me be clear that we are talking about a very small proportion of providers; overall, FE colleges are doing extremely well. However, those intervention powers are vital if we are to continue making important improvements in the UK’s skills base.

Our commitment to ensure that all provision is good or improving and to eliminate all inadequate or unsatisfactory provision by 2008 remains firm. Crucially, however, we have listened carefully to the thoughtful and constructive debate on our intervention proposals during the Bill’s passage. Indeed, I have had conversations across the Floor of the House with Opposition Members. It is in the interests not only of learners but of colleges and the reputation of the whole FE system that we get this right, so I have taken full account of the representations that I have received. The amendments that I have tabled, as they apply to England and Wales, directly address those concerns.

We need to ensure that both the Learning and Skills Council in England and the Welsh Ministers, as the bodies responsible for commissioning and funding FE, have the full range of powers that they need to secure best quality and best value for money. The recent report on collaboration between schools with sixth forms and further education colleges shows that there is a need in Wales to encourage and promote greater collaborative approaches among post-16 providers. The provision for Welsh Ministers to be given the power to direct governing bodies of FE institutions to make specific collaboration arrangements with maintained schools or other education bodies will directly contribute to ensuring that that happens.

Let me also be clear that our White Paper commitment to eliminate inadequate provision in England is unchanged. The LSC must have the power to intervene if governing bodies do not take the appropriate action in those rare instances in which a failure of leadership and management leads to inadequate provision. The clause will give the LSC the power to affect a move towards dismissal by enabling it to direct the governing body to initiate dismissal procedures in respect of a particular senior post holder. Our intention has always been that the governing body would follow its usual dismissal procedures if the LSC directed the dismissal of a post holder. However, in response to concerns raised we have now made that explicit. I hope that that will be welcomed by the Opposition.

As we have stressed during debates here and in another place, those powers of intervention would be utilised only at the end of a long process that allows time for colleges to improve. The LSC’s draft intervention policy document was made available to Members, together with the Government amendment tabled on 6 June. That draft policy sets out the initial thinking and shows the procedures that the LSC would follow before invoking any statutory intervention powers. It also sets out very clearly the important safeguards that would be in place. The LSC’s draft intervention policy document shows that intervention would be considered only in serious cases and only where the college had not tackled the problem that had been identified.

It might be helpful if I summarise the four-stage process that we envisage. The first step is the annual commissioning dialogue. Each year, the LSC discusses with every college the full range of learning provisions offered and how that contributes to delivering successful outcomes for learners, employers and the local community. A review of the quality of provision and the identification of areas for development is an integral element of that dialogue and is an opportunity for both the college and the LSC to highlight any concerns as they arise so that the appropriate remedial action can be taken before problems escalate.

Through that discussion, however, and where supported by evidence, such as inspection reports, success rate data or evidence of financial problems, the second step is for the LSC to consider the capacity of the college to address the underperformance robustly and swiftly, and to determine whether it is appropriate to issue a notice to improve. During the third step, the LSC would co-ordinate work with a range of agencies to support the college in delivering the improvements required by the notice to improve. Usually, we would expect that phase of support and improvement to be completed within 12 months.

The fourth and final step of the process would be intervention, if necessary. Escalation to intervention procedures would be considered only where the LSC was satisfied about one or more of the triggers identified in proposed new section 56A(2) to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which might include the failure of a college to meet the relevant conditions under the notice to improve. Exceptionally, intervention may be triggered by circumstances that place immediate and serious risk to learners and/or public funding, or by a direction by the Secretary of State. In respect of any direction from the Secretary of State, let me be clear that we have introduced a requirement for the LSC to supply the governing body with a copy of the notice that it receives when complying with a direction from the Secretary of State.

I stress that throughout each step of the process, if the governing body can demonstrate that it is, or is capable of addressing the problems, the LSC would not take action to exercise its statutory powers. I know, for example, that much of the previous debate focused on specific concerns about the proposed provisions as they might apply to the dismissal of senior post holders, but, as I have just outlined, the prior steps of the process are intended to support the college in managing and securing its own quality improvement. That is very much the thrust of our proposals.

In bringing forward new clause 1, I have sought to make it clear that the governing body, as the employer, is responsible for all decisions regarding any dismissal, by giving the LSC the power to direct the governing body to put into effect its procedures for considering the dismissal of one of its senior members of staff. We would expect any governing body that received such a direction to commission a full and thorough investigation and to consider whether there is a case for dismissal in the light of its findings. The governing body alone would be responsible for the outcome of that process.

When we make new orders for the instruments and articles to government to apply to further education corporations in England, we will make them consistent with the requirement to conduct an investigation to provide any evidence for the consideration of dismissal procedures.

However, as the governing body would be obliged to comply with such a direction, we believe that these powers still gives us the rigour and reassurances that we need to ensure that any and all instances of failure in the system will be challenged robustly and effectively. Of course, we would expect that in the vast majority of cases, the governing body would act without the need for external intervention. That is very much the thrust of our argument. But if governing bodies are not robust enough to deliver what we need, something should be in place to ensure that that weakness is remedied. Most reasonable people would support that conclusion.

I can offer even greater reassurances in respect of some of the concerns that have been expressed. In those rare and extreme circumstances where intervention proves to be necessary, I have now also made explicit on the face of the Bill the requirement for the Learning and Skills Council to give the governing body notice citing which aspect of section 56A(2) applies; the reasons why it is satisfied that this applies; and to set out its reasons for the actions it proposes to take. The governing body would then have the opportunity to respond before any action was taken.

Again, if the governing body is able to demonstrate that the problem is being or is capable of being addressed, the Learning and Skills Council would not exercise its statutory powers. In Wales, the Welsh Ministers are required to take intervention action by order. Similar to the requirement for a written notice from the Learning and Skills Council, this order of the Welsh Ministers would explain which of the conditions for intervention is satisfied and will satisfy the requirement for a written record of the action taken and the reasons for it.

As I said, the Learning and Skills Council has set out its proposed intervention policy document in draft to aid the discussions during Committee and beyond. This draft is, of course, subject to the passage of the Bill and the outcome of the consultation with the sector. This means that all interested parties will have the opportunity to refine the policy further before it is finalised and approved by the Secretary of State. Once the policy is approved the Secretary of State will then lay it before the House. Similarly, the requirement that Welsh Ministers consult on their statement of policy will ensure that appropriate consultation takes place with stakeholders, particularly further education representatives.

I end by summing up the key points I have made in response to what is an exceedingly important element of this Bill. Our goal of eliminating underperformance from the further education system is a bold and justifiable ambition. That is why I make no apology for saying that the Learning and Skills Council must be able to intervene effectively in those extreme circumstances where the college has not itself addressed underperformance in a sufficiently rapid and robust manner.

I must also stress that the powers of intervention proposed by this clause are wholly consistent with employment and human rights legislation; they do not undermine the role of governing bodies; and perhaps most importantly they safeguard the interest of learners by supporting our ambition to eliminate poor and inadequate provision from the further education system. We have a duty to every learner in the FE system to make sure that they benefit from high quality and ever improving provision. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said on Second Reading,

“It is wrong to assume that every principal in the country is excellent—occasionally there will be difficulties.”—[Official Report, 21 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 1010.]

We need the powers to deal with that situation.

The support for a robust, fair and transparent interventions policy is clear and there is a consensus on this issue. The Association of Colleges supports this as do many Members of both Houses. Indeed, I have received a letter from John Brennan in which he offers the unconditional support of the AOC to this Government amendment as the AOC now considers we have achieved a workable basis for LSC intervention, which is compatible with employment legislation, consistent with the moves towards self-regulation and will give emphasis to the drive to embed within the sector a culture of responsibility for its own standards and performance. Similarly in Wales, I am pleased to say that Forum welcomes the fact that Ministers have listened to its views too.

I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Association of Colleges for its contribution to this amendment, and in particular for its help in the development of the LSC’s draft policy document. Through consultation, debate and dialogue we have achieved an acceptable way forward. We have gone a long way to allay the concerns of hon. Members and I therefore commend the new clauses and the amendment to the Committee.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It is good to be back and considering these matters. John Ruskin, speaking of 19th-century industrial Britain, said that

“the sky is covered with gray cloud;—not rain-cloud, but a dry black veil, which no ray of sunshine can pierce...It looks more to me as if it were made of dead men’s souls”.

I thought that we ought to have some Ruskin to raise the standard of debate in the Committee. When these proposals were first introduced, there was a cloud hanging over FE colleges—perhaps not quite the same kind as Ruskin’s, but certainly a dark cloud—which was why the proposals were greeted with such hostility. Indeed, it was why members of all parties in the House of Lords took the view that the powers being granted were unnecessary. It would be quite inappropriate for a dark cloud to hang over our successful further education sector.

The Minister listened and, as I said earlier in the Committee, he was generous in allowing representations to be made to him and, more than that, in entering dialogue with, as he said, the AOC, other interested parties and Opposition Members. I pay tribute to the tone and tenor of the way in which he has handled the whole Bill and particularly this part of it. However, I remain largely unconvinced, and I shall explain why.

The Minister has set out the four elements of the process that would ensue should it become necessary, in the view of those who will have the power, to intervene in respect of an FE college and to take the very serious step of dismissing its senior managers, governors or principal. I simply do not believe, based on the evidence, that those additional powers are necessary.

The Minister generously started his comments by acknowledging that 90 per cent. of FE colleges were deemed by Ofsted to be satisfactory or better. He then, in my judgment with equal sagacity, said that the Government were determined to drive up standards and eliminate underperformance. But underperformance in the sector is rare, by Ofsted’s and his own admission. There is no evidence that it is growing and no evidence that Ministers have had to use their existing powers to intervene in respect of college principals to deal with underperformance.

As the Minister knows, when I asked him how often the Government have had to intervene using their existing powers to sack college principals since those powers emerged in statute, he revealed that they have never been used. Powers that have never been used are to be increased and transferred to the LSC. Performance is deemed to be satisfactory or better in the overwhelming majority of colleges and, where it is not, we have been offered no evidence to suggest that it is due to inadequate leadership or that the powers that the Government are seeking to create would be likely to solve the problem.

We have reached a point at which a sensible and generous Minister is dancing on the head of a pin. I say that because in the new clause reintroduced following the defeat of Lord Adonis in the other place—the first time that that gentleman had ever been defeated in the Lords, though one fears he may have further disappointments to face in coming weeks—the Minister seeks to amend the proposals in such a way as to satisfy his critics. He has been generous, as I have said, but the powers are now so qualified, so convoluted and so byzantine that one wonders whether they are worth introducing at all. So we have a Minister who has listened and reacted, but he is now reintroducing a clause that, frankly, is not worthy of this Bill, this Committee or this House. Ministers have powers at present and if they choose to use them, they should use them. There is a need for a long-stop power, where public money is involved and the public interest is concerned. The Minister is right that standards and rigour of quality are about learners and learners’ interests. Were there no powers of that kind, and had the Minister brought through this Committee a proposal to take such powers, he might have attracted the support of Opposition Members. However, let us be clear; we are talking about greater powers and their transfer to the LSC.

I have one or two further questions, as if my previous words were not enough to damn the clause. First, the regulatory impact assessment states that there will be an additional burden on the LSC in terms of administering the intervention strategy. Will the Minister estimate the cost of that additional burden and tell us whether new staff will be involved to implement that strategy? Also, because he has a brilliant team of civil servants assisting him, he must have a notional view of how often those powers will be used and how many colleges are in such a state that he expects these powers to be implemented with regard to them.

Furthermore, what are the proposed savings in the Department for Education and Skills of transferring the intervention strategy to the LSC? There must be a concomitant saving, and I am sure that the Minister has those figures at his finger tips. How can we judge the effectiveness of powers that have never been used? Why do powers that have never been used need to be extended to college managers? I ask that question specifically because this issue is not just about principals; it is now about senior managers, too. Finally, does the Minister envisage these powers being used more often, once they have gone to the LSC, than they have been thus far?

I repeat that the Minister has been generous. He has approached this matter with good will. I have absolutely no doubts about his commitment to improving standards. However, one does not get rid of underperformance by taking these types of steps. One gets rid of underperformance by celebrating excellence and examining how it can be exported and emulated. That is the way to improve those colleges that still have some way to go.

On the basis of what we have heard and unless we hear much more, then I am afraid that, with some hesitation because of the good dialogue that we have had, that the Opposition may wish to test the will of the Committee on this matter, subject to the debate that will now ensue.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I recognise and welcome the steps forward that the new clause makes. It is significantly better than the original draft of the clause in the Bill that first went through the other place. Nevertheless, I must say that I have some sympathy with the statements that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has made. I am still not clear about the purpose of the clause.

First, as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has said and as the Minister has acknowledged, the powers in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 have never been used, so why does the Minister want to transfer those powers to the LSC? Is it because he believes that they should have been used? If so, why did he fail to use them? How many colleges does he envisage that the powers will be used on? I also sympathise with the comments that the hon. Gentleman has just made about the increased burden on the LSC, especially at a time when I know that the Minister has been pushing hard to try to streamline the administrative burden on that organisation.

Moreover, as we move forward with Leitch, it is not immediately clear to me that the LSC is obviously the body that should take responsibility for this matter. In many colleges, the LSC contributes only 50 or 60 per cent. of the total sum to run the college. If we are dealing with public money, and other money that comes by way of contributions from individuals or private industry, is it necessarily right, as we progress with Leitch and expect more of a contribution from individuals and industry, to give the power in question to the Learning and Skills Council? What are the implications for colleges whose governors are provided for by a charitable foundation, such as those dealing specifically with disabilities and special needs?

I would welcome clarification on several points. I welcome new subsection (8), but I am not really clear what new subsection (9) provides for. The Minister said that it would force colleges to initiate dismissal procedures, but will the Learning and Skills Council give in its direction the employment law grounds for dismissal of the individual? It is not clear to me exactly what is meant. I should also be grateful for more clarification of new subsection (2)(d), which seems to be extremely vaguely worded. I am not clear precisely what would constitute an institution’s

“performing significantly less well than it might in all the circumstances reasonably be expected to perform”.

Perhaps the Minister will explain that a little more clearly.

I shall listen to what the Minister has to say, but I remain unconvinced about the purpose of the clause. If the Conservatives press the matter to a vote, we are minded to support them.

Austin Mitchell (Labour, Great Grimsby)

I rise to dispel the impression that Labour Members are all sitting silently waiting for the dawn of socialism on 27 June and that they all admire the Bill. It is right to express a note of dissent on the new clause, which, frankly, worries me.

I can see that a power of the kind that the new clause provides for is necessary to deal with the financial abuses that developed in the halcyon days to which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has referred—I was going to call him my hon. Friend, because we used to go on joint fishing expeditions to find small fish that had escaped the common fisheries policy. As to whether I agree with him in this case, I must point out that many of the financial abuses that the new clause would allow the Learning and Skills Council to deal with were in the past cleared up only very slowly, and often in face-saving ways. The new clause would enable them to be dealt with more directly. My worry is more general, because the Learning and Skills Council has considerable powers and the colleges, in the main, dance to its tune.

I have been very concerned and have written to the Minister, the Learning and Skills Council and colleges about the fall of more than 1 million in recruitment to what might be called leisure or non-vocational courses. An article in The Guardian’s education supplement on Tuesday, entitled “Why have adults suddenly decided to stay away from colleges?” dealt with that. The leisure courses that they are deserting are those that enrich the lives of older students, and have traditionally been offered in the colleges or by the Workers Educational Association, which is in a much weaker state these days. Such courses might be dismissed as trivial, if they are on, for example, local history. Some of the other types of courses affected are

“distance learning...courses that aren’t included in the National Qualifications Framework and thus don’t attract public subsidy...language and leisure courses”

and even some professional courses. Those all enrich people’s lives, but there has been a fall in recruitment.

That aspect of the matter is in effect covered by clause 20, which requires colleges to consult affected groups, and the groups that I am concerned about have been badly affected. However, this is an instance of the way in which colleges all dance—indeed, have been forced to dance—to the tune of the Learning and Skills Council, since it decided to concentrate spending on vocational qualifications for those in the 16-to-19 and 19 and older age groups. That ties colleges down in a way in which they have not been tied down before. The LSC, which controls the purse strings, has adequate power to ensure that colleges comply with Government priorities, and they are no more than priorities—there is no mention of dropping courses, although many have been dropped. To maintain courses, however, colleges will need a degree of freedom, and we must ensure that they have more power and responsibility than they would have if they were faced with the threat of draconian intervention by the LSC.

I refer particularly to new subsection (9), which the Liberals, surprisingly, glossed over. They are not making a courageous stand for academic freedom or college independence by saying that they will listen eagerly to what the Minister has to say. Let us be clear about this: will their party stand up for what it believes? Liberal Members cannot give us their usual equivocation, saying, “On the one hand, there’s A, on the other hand, there’s B, so let’s wait to see what Minister says,” because he has already said it. New subsection (9) is a threat to academic freedom. In effect, it says that any lecturer who makes trouble and who is a bloody nuisance, and I have known several examples at Grimsby college, which is now Grimsby institute of further and higher education—

Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg and Goole)

So have I.

Austin Mitchell (Labour, Great Grimsby)

My hon. Friend should be aware that carers are going to be asked to take more responsibility and to treat the old more gently than he appears prone to do.

One lecturer who taught my daughter was, frankly, a nuisance in the college, but he was right to raise questions about expenditure, although he was eventually kicked out. If the LSC decides that a college must push out a lecturer who attracts public attention, that is another threat to colleges’ academic independence and freedom. It is over-egging the threat to academic freedom to supplement the powers that colleges already have—they were overused in the long dispute over the silver book contract, when those who stuck to the old terms of service were precluded from getting pay increases, which was a restriction on them—with a power to allow outside intervention against anybody who breaks surface and becomes publicly concerned, and about whom there is some kind of agitation.

I can see the case for the proposed powers in respect of financial abuses, which it is difficult for governing bodies to control and which have certainly arisen. Although I am glad that colleges now work in a much freer atmosphere, financial fiddles are always possible and must be controlled, so the LSC needs a power to intervene to deal with them. However, I cannot see why we need such powers in respect of the courses that colleges provide or the people they employ. That is a threat too far.

I will sit down now, but not before demonstrating my own gutlessness, as distinct from that of the Liberals, by saying that I will listen with eager attention to what the Minister has to say to convince me on this worrying issue.

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

We have had a good exchange of views. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings started by quoting John Ruskin and talking about clouds and rain.

Austin Mitchell (Labour, Great Grimsby)

That is the state of the Tory party.

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

I actually thought that he had prior notice of the torrential rain in Harlow last night and the fact that my house had flooded, but that was clearly not the case. He went into a flight of fancy that was not justified by the substance of our proposals. He talked about hostility in the further education sector in respect of our original proposals; given what actually took place, that was unjustified. We rightly stated our desire to retain a power of intervention, and there was then a reasoned debate with colleges and representative bodies that expressed concerns on the issue. We reached a conclusion with which the Association of Colleges, the body that represents FE colleges, is extremely satisfied, so I am struggling to understand why it does not satisfy the official Opposition.

We are right to maintain that, in extreme circumstances and when all else has failed, we need powers of intervention. Let me be clear, however, and reiterate what I said at the beginning of the process: our strong preference is for the college and the governing body to take responsibility throughout the four-stage procedure for tackling underperformance and for improving performance.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Among the measures that will be implemented before extreme action is taken, does the Minister include sharing best practice with successful further and higher education colleges? A successful one in my constituency, Havering college, has a strong head and a stable governing body. It is over-subscribed and has innovative courses; I am sure that it would be only too pleased to share that good practice with an underperforming college, to help to avoid the extreme action for which the Bill provides.

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

I strongly agree with the hon. Lady. During the four-stage process, there will usually be a period of about 12 months for the college to improve following a notice to improve. It will be down to the Learning and Skills Council, with the Quality Improvement Agency and perhaps neighbouring colleges, to provide the support to help the college and the governing body to tackle underperformance. The proposals are not directed at trying to ensure that colleges fail; they are crafted to ensure that the college takes responsibility for tackling the problem itself. In addition, as the hon. Lady eloquently set out, we will do everything in our power to ensure that others can come in and support that process.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

There are already well established procedures to do just that. In extreme circumstances, such as a case of gross financial mismanagement, which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby identified, or of highly inappropriate behaviour, the Secretary of State can intervene and dismiss a college governor. As for improvement, there are any number of bodies, ranging from the LSC to the standards unit of the Minister’s Department, the Centre for Excellence in Leadership, Lifelong Learning UK and the Institute for Learning, that can help colleges in that respect. Why more powers?

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

The hon. Gentleman was wrong in his assertion that the proposed powers already exist. The Secretary of State does not have the specific power to direct the starting of the process for the dismissal of a senior post holder, which is an important deterrent. I shall come on to explain that.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Will the Minister define “senior post holder”? It obviously refers to someone beyond the level of principal. How senior? Is the level of management defined in any way?

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

It is. For the record, the scope of the power would be limited to senior post holders designated under the instruments and articles. Typically, that would include principals and directors, not teaching staff or lecturers. I will comment on that when I respond to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. The contention of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who is leading for the Opposition, is that the powers are not necessary in any circumstances and that, in every eventuality, we should trust the college and the college governing body to tackle such problems. I think back to the experience in the late 1980s and early 1990s, immediately after incorporation. If the Government had had these powers for intervention in extremis, there would not have been the kind of problems and abuses that existed at that stage. For the record, the Conservative party was in power then and responsible for such issues.

The hon. Gentleman said that the existing powers have not been used. I have no problem with that. In fact, I hope that the new powers will not be used. They are powers to deter and to ensure that the governing body and the college take responsibility for their actions.

I repeat that we have had an important and reasoned debate. The Government have responded to concerns that have been expressed, and we have managed to satisfy the Association of Colleges, which has written to me explicitly supporting our proposals. In those circumstances, I do not understand why the Opposition cannot support our position, unless they are in the business of opposition for opposition’s sake.

The hon. Member for Brent, East asked whether it was right that the Learning and Skills Council should have responsibility for such matters given that there is a policy thrust towards self-regulation. It is certainly the case that the proposals that Sir George Sweeney made for self-regulation—proposals that I asked him to put forward—envisage circumstances in which colleges take greater collective responsibility for self-policing, for want of a better phrase. That would be good and healthy. Just as I want individual governing bodies to take responsibility for dealing with poor performance, I would regard it as a healthy development if colleges collectively could take on that responsibility.

However, we would still want to have the longstop power, in extremis, if a college governing body, the Association of Colleges collectively or whoever else has not dealt with an issue. Because of our responsibilities for the public purse and the public interest and, most importantly, to the learners who are affected, we would want longstop powers in extremis.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I asked specifically about a situation in which not all the funding is channelled through the Learning and Skills Council. If the majority of the funding for a particular college were no longer channelled through the council, would it be appropriate for the council to be the body that directs the removal of governors or college principals?

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

Even under the demand-led approach that we are moving towards—we envisage most of the funding going through the demand-led process—there would still be a relationship with the Learning and Skills Council. Funding would still come from the council. If it will not have the ultimate power of intervention, and if we want to protect the public purse and the public interest, who will take on the responsibility?

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

The Secretary of State.

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

From a sedentary position comes the cry, “The Secretary of State.” It is clear that through these processes the Secretary of State has the power to direct the Learning and Skills Council to tackle a problem of poor performance through intervention. The Secretary of State also has the power to disagree and stop the council from intervening. I believe that that provides the public accountability reassurance requested by the colleges and by Opposition Members.

The hon. Lady referred to subsection (9) and spoke about employment law and the responsibilities of the Learning and Skills Council. The proposals that we have put forward make it explicitly clear that, under employment law, the governing body is responsible for the situation. The council’s responsibility is to identify poor performance, and, if it has concerns about the conduct of a senior post-holder, to direct the governing body to consider a dismissal procedure. However, under contracts and employment law, the responsibility would reside with the governing body.

My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby made several points. I shall deal directly with his concerns because I know that he has a long-standing interest in further education and adult education funding. This Government have not cut funding for the further education sector. We have increased funding in real terms by 50 per cent. during the past 10 years. What we are rightly doing is shifting priorities. Skills for life provision for people who have literacy and numeracy problems has to be a priority. In addition, the roll-out of the train to gain programme makes the incredibly radical commitment that, for the first time in this country, if an adult in the workplace does not have their first full level 2 qualification—the equivalent of five GCSEs—the state has a responsibility and duty to step in and ensure the relevant provision is provided. That is what we are doing and where we are prioritising funding. I acknowledge that because we are doing that much more, even with the increased funding in those priorities areas, there is relatively less money available than there has been for non-vocational education.

I am not saying that those types of courses are not valuable; they are incredibly valuable. However, in those circumstances and given that there has to be a limit to how much money the Government can give, we must ask the individual to contribute more. We need to shift the culture of learning in this country so that individuals make that commitment voluntarily. My hon. Friend referred to older learners. Even with the changes that we have made, on the last available figures we have double the number of over-60s studying at further education colleges compared with 10 years ago. I hope that gives him some reassurance.

Finally, in response to my hon. Friend’s concerns about the threat to academic freedom, I genuinely do not support the view that this proposal is a threat to academic freedom. The powers will prevail in tightly constrained circumstances and most certainly will not apply when a lecturer complains about expenditure by a college governing body or a principal.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

As the student of the lecturer to which my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby referred, the situation that he mentioned was one that I referred to on Second Reading. Having the Learning and Skills Council in place would have been helpful then—it was pre-incorporation at that time—because the governing body of the college completely and utterly failed to deal with the situation. In fact, it removed the lecturer and supported college management. If a body over and above the governing body had existed to which that situation could have been referred and to which the inquiry that was recommended by the governing body could have been referred, the necessary action could perhaps have been taken.

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I know that, from her previous experience before she was a Member of Parliament, she brings great commitment and knowledge of the way that further education colleges operate on the ground.

I meant to refer to a question asked by the hon. Member for Brent, East about 56A(2)(d), which relates to the evidence base that will be used in informing judgments. The evidence base will include inspection judgments, and assessments against the LSC’s minimum performance levels. The framework for excellence that is in development will, over time, provide a more coherent and simpler framework by which the performance of a further education college can be judged.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I thank the Minister for that helpful answer. However, I am still not clear about exactly what will constitute “significantly less well” than would be expected in the circumstances. Will there be a specific grade or a number of grades over time under Ofsted? I am not clear about what safeguards colleges will have so that they will not be forced into the procedure.

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

I said earlier that the Learning and Skills Council has published a draft intervention strategy. We will continue to consult on that. Within that framework what constitutes poor performance is clear. We will undoubtedly listen to concerns about the degree to which we have got that right and will ensure that the draft intervention strategy addresses those issues. As I said earlier, that will ultimately be placed before the House. It will be crystal clear in what circumstances poor performance will be tackled.

We have had an important debate. This issue and the matter of foundation degree awarding powers have been the two most contentious elements of the Bill. Any reasonable person would conclude that the Government have listened and responded, and that they have given reassurance as to the manner in which the powers will be used. We have to retain the right to intervene in extremis—in exceptional circumstances in which a governing body has not dealt with a major, fundamental concern. The Association of Colleges says clearly and explicitly that we have listened and got it right, and have found an acceptable way forward. If the measure is acceptable to the AOC, I hope that it will be acceptable to Opposition parties.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister has been dancing, albeit elegantly, on the head of his pin. Section 57 of Further and Higher Education Act 1992 gives explicit powers in extreme circumstances to the Government, through the Secretary of State, to intervene in a college in the way that he has described. We have heard from the Minister that that is a power that he never expects to use; that it is a deterrent, not a threat. We have also heard that the LSC could be told by the Secretary of State that it is not allowed to use the power in particular circumstances. The power is not only unnecessary; it is not worthy to be a part of the Bill. I think that we should test the mood of the Committee as to whether it should remain in the Bill.

New Clause 2

New Clause 7

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We have spoken today about bodies that have relationships with FE colleges in all kinds of ways—inspecting, funding, monitoring, planning, setting standards and helping them to improve. They were highlighted by Sir Andrew Foster, whose report into these matters revealed that there were no fewer than 17 such bodies. Since his report, one has gone and another has been added, so there are still 17. He described that as “a galaxy” of oversight, inspection and accreditation, and argued that they needed to be rationalised, co-ordinated and focused. He went on to say that the inspection regime of FE colleges could be lightened by rationalising the process and moving to a system under which colleges regulated themselves to a much greater extent. He argued for deregulation—self-regulation, I should say—by degree.

The Opposition strongly support that proposition and the new clause should be seen in that context. It proposes that the Secretary of State should

“lay before Parliament an independent report to Parliament on the operational efficiency and effectiveness of organisations responsible for the monitoring and inspection of Further Education institutions.”

It further proposes that the Secretary of State should define those organisations and that

“a report shall be published annually for the first five years after this section comes into force.”

We are anxious to put some independent, empirical information before the House on the size of the galaxy that Sir Andrew Foster has identified. We want to know how many satellites there are in the galaxy and the day-to-day effect that they will have on FE, so that we can move to the lighter-touch regulation—self-regulation—that Andrew Foster recommended and which we support.

We believe that colleges can do more. We think that there is untapped capacity in FE. We celebrate the skills of leadership and teaching in that sector. We suspect—more than that: we are confident—that they feel inhibited from exercising their skills; they feel restricted by bureaucracy and burdened by over-regulation.

For the benefit of the Committee, I shall say more about Andrew Foster’s report. He said:

“Currently, the rigours of proving the quality of provision to the plethora of interested bodies, including qualification bodies, are in danger of detracting from the need for continuous improvement and the ownership of that by FE colleges...The world of FE college oversight is crowded. There is a galaxy of oversight, inspection and accreditation bodies.”

As I said, he argued that they needed to be “rationalised, co-ordinated and focused.”

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

Would the hon. Gentleman help the Committee by giving examples of the sort of bodies and organisations to which he refers?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I would be delighted to do so, but I did not want to tire the Committee unduly. I have a list; it is in the report. It comes immediately after the reference to the “galaxy of oversight”. When speaking of a galaxy, Sir Andrew Foster mentions awarding bodies, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the Institute for Learning, Lifelong Learning UK, the Centre for Excellence in Leadership, the Learning and Skills Development Agency and the Quality Improvement Agency, local learning and skills councils, the standards unit of the DFES, sector skills councils, regional development agencies, local authorities, Jobcentre Plus, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Learning and Skills Council, the Quality Assurance Agency, the Adult Learning Inspectorate, which disappeared soon after being criticised by the Government, and Ofsted.

All those bodies are, of themselves, significant. They all do good work. Some are essential to the relationship between Government and further education, and some are vital to improving standards. The problem is the immense overlap between them. Not only is there duplication, but the feeling among FE colleges—the hon. Lady, with her immense experience in these matters must have encountered it as much as I have—is that they are forced endlessly to jump through hoops, sometimes the same hoops by different people, and sometimes for an uncertain purpose.

How often have members of the Committee met FE college principals and senior managers who say that they spend a great deal of their time collecting or collating data, but are not sure why? I suspect that any commercial organisation—and I have no dogmatic reverence for the commercial sector—looking at the matter would want to rationalise the process in the way that Andrew Foster recommended. That is not my analysis; it is his. It is not my report; it is the report that resulted from the Government asking an independent person to consider those matters. The hon. Lady is a perfectly reasonable member of the Committee and of this House, but we might, through this new clause, ask for a report back to Parliament on what the impact of all of this is on the daily life of colleges.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The general point about making an efficient regulation system is a good one. What I was not clear about was what specifically the hon. Gentleman would suggest should be taken out of the current system of regulation, and which of those bodies that he identified should be taken out of the FE sector.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Government took the view that the adult learning inspectorate should go. That was just after the adult learning inspectorate was damning about the Government. In its final report, the inspectorate was critical of the Government’s record on skills. I do not want to be too prescriptive about that. Far be it for me to describe in detail precisely which of the requirements on colleges is most burdensome. However, if we move to self-regulation, that means by definition reducing some of the burden of regulation on others. If we are going to let FE grow up, we must be adult about that process.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I shall make this point, which will save me from making a speech, and help to speed up the Committee. I have great sympathy with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for City of Durham, given that the report was commissioned by the Government, is it not for the Government to respond to the recommendations of Sir Andrew Foster’s report? I do not see any need to put the matter on the face of the Bill, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I would like to see the Minister make regular statements to the House about progress on the rationalisation of those bodies.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I fear that the relationship between the official Opposition and the Liberals is becoming too close. I am becoming worried that every time the hon. Lady rises, I agree with her. There is a moving together of the Opposition parties, at least on the subject of further education. However, that might not feature during the course of the Bill, so I will not offer a hostage to fortune. She is right, of course; it is not up to me to list which bodies would go and what form the new regime would take after regulation, as the hon. Member for City of Durham knows.

However, what is absolutely clear is that since Foster, the burden of regulation has not altered significantly. We still have a large number of bodies, and regular reports of duplication and repetition from colleges. We do not have a blueprint for self-regulation of the kind that I want to see. I am disappointed that the Bill does not do more in that regard. That is one of the reasons that I was initially so hostile to the part of the Bill that we have just debated. I accept that the Minister has mitigated, to a considerable degree, that part of the Bill, but it is a bit rich, in a world that gives FE colleges more responsibility, to have a Bill which at least in one important respect gives more power to those who have oversight of them.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Does my hon. Friend agree that any conclusions about the future and functions of the institutions he listed should arise from the results of the report and that the conclusions should come at the end of the report rather than at the beginning?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Precisely. And it is for the House and Members to consider what I described as independent and empirical evidence. We are asking in the new clause for a proper analysis of this. We do not claim that we have all the answers but we know the direction in which we wish to travel. My hon. Friend is quite right. Once we have that report there should be a debate about how we move forward on its results. I am more confident about the capacity of FE than some others may be. I have more belief in the leaders and teachers in FE.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

The hon. Gentleman has made some sweeping statements about how he wants to remove bureaucracy, but rather dishonestly from my point of view, he has refused to say exactly what that would entail. I have just received, regrettably, a copy of the submission to the shadow Cabinet from the Conservative economic competitiveness policy group, “Skills Training for a More Competitive Economy”. It makes no mention of any of the changes that he suggests need to be made, but states:

“the flow of funds should be from the DfES to the trainee’s local authority, and from the local authority, on behalf of an individual trainee, to a training provider”.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to explain how the system he suggests would work in a way that reduces bureaucracy on further education colleges.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It would be quite wrong for me to speak on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about the report that he published. Indeed, its relevance to the clause is pretty thin, given that it is not about FE college management or FE college regulation. What I can say with confidence about that report is that it is absolutely right in wanting to slim down the funding and management process in FE. It is absolutely right in its analysis of the paucity of the Government’s policy in respect of driving up skills.

The Under-Secretary, who is a diligent Minister and a good Member of this House, must regard the figures for apprenticeship enrolments—his own Government’s figures—with a certain degree of shame. Now that he has read that first report, perhaps he will take the trouble to read the report that I published today on that subject. It shows not only that the number of people who are not in education, employment or training has grown by 15 per cent. since the Government came to office—

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Order. We are having a battle of reports, and it is going rather wide of the new clause. After that little political knockabout, I should be grateful if we could get back to the subject.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Under-Secretary was tempting me down the road of exchanging claims about the Government’s record on skills. You are right, Mr. Atkinson. If we are to deal with the problem of NEETs, those young people whose lives have been blighted and whose dreams have been shattered, we need an FE system that is fit for purpose. That means an FE system that is confident, forward looking and highly focused. That would be best served in an atmosphere of self-regulation where the bureaucracy that surrounds FE was reduced. That is not my consideration. That is the consideration of most of the college principals I speak to and certainly it is the thrust of Sir Andrew Foster’s report.

To that end, our new clause 7 suggests that we look at those matters closely and that that examination be reported back to this House so that Members can make a judgment on how we move forward in that endeavour. I think that that is uncontentious and in line with Sir Andrew Foster’s considerations and, indeed, with the stated opinions of Ministers, who have said that they want greater self-regulation in colleges. I find it hard to believe that the Minister does not want that kind of empirical analysis, and impossible to conceive that he does not want that information reported back to the House. I look forward eagerly to him embracing the new clause as a helpful and positive addition tothe Bill.

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

I might have to disappoint the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. He started by making an incorrect assertion; he said that Sir Andrew Foster’s very good report talked about 17 inspection and oversight bodies, and that one has been added and one taken away. That simply is not true. Two have been taken away. To claim that there has been no substantive change is completely at odds with the reality given that we have merged two inspection bodies, which have a major impact on FE colleges, to reduce their number from two to one.

I thought that there was a very interesting interchange, involving my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary, about the report produced by the right hon. Member for Wokingham. I will take your counsel, Mr. Atkinson—all I would say is that, in the last two years, I have not met one FE college principal who has urged me to give funding responsibilities back to local authorities. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there is support for such a proposition, perhaps he can bring it forward.

Returning to the matters before us, I agree very much that the operational efficiency and effectiveness of all organisations involved in FE and training is vital. As we said, in our further education White Paper, we are committed to looking at the scope for further simplification, and all elements of the learning and skills landscape are kept under review. We are committed to continuing to seek further efficiencies.

The hon. Gentleman referred to Sir Andrew Foster’s report, which drew attention to the number of bodies. As I said earlier, we have since merged Ofsted and ALI so that now only one body inspects FE institutions, rather than two. We have also removed the Learning and Skills Development Agency. Also, as Foster suggested, roles have been clarified, as we described in last year’s “Further Education” White Paper, which was the right response to Sir Andrew Foster’s report. The remaining bodies have clear and distinct roles and responsibilities, and although we expect partners to work together, I do not believe that their activities overlap.

The hon. Gentleman has failed to recognise how the landscape continues to change as part of our ongoing reform agenda. The 17 bodies that Foster discussed are organisations with monitoring, inspection, improvement and standard-setting roles, which clearly are very important. Foster set them out as three groups: inspectorates, of which there were three, monitoring bodies, of which there were six, and those that help the sector improve and thus bring greater success to learners, of which there were eight. We have streamlined the first group already so that there is Ofsted for FE and the QAA for HE. We have spoken about foundation degrees already and about maintaining the role for the QAA, which is of paramount importance. In that debate, I did not hear calls from the Opposition to do away with the QAA or to merge its role; indeed, there was an insistence on the importance of that role. However, on this part of the Bill, the Opposition, looking for some cheap shots, argue differently.

The second group includes local authorities, regional development agencies and sector skills councils. Again, on Tuesday, the hon. Gentleman pointed out the importance to the learning and skills system of those bodies, and there was explicit and strong support from the Opposition for the sector skills councils. However, again, in this part of the debate, a different tune is played. It is also important that we are clear that those bodies are far more partners, bringing influence to bear, than bodies set up to regulate individual providers. We have already debated their importance and their role in delivering appropriate choice for young people and demand-led provision to meet the skills challenge. I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that.

The third group reflects our commitment to drive up standards and the importance of providing both expertise and support to the sector as a whole, as part of the wider reform agenda. But that group, too, has been streamlined; the DFES standards unit no longer exists in a separate form and the QIA has been established to simplify and support quality improvement across the sector.

When we consider the matter in the abstract, it is possible to call simplistically for further rationalisation. On one level that is attractive but, when we begin seriously to examine the detail, we often reach different conclusions. I shall give an example of that. I considered, and asked officials to consider, the possibility of merging the Learning and Skills Council and HEFCE, and I concluded that, were we to go down that route, we would create the largest funding and commissioning body outside the former Soviet Union. Given that, I do not think that it would be a sensible move to make. With respect, some of the calls for simplification are driven from a simplistic basis.

We are making changes and bringing about further rationalisation—that is not rhetoric. We are also working with the further education system as the proposals for self-regulation are developed. We as a Government, I as the responsible Minister, and the Secretary of State asked the further education body to come up with those proposals. Sir George Sweeney, as the chair of the self-regulation steering group, is working and consulting on self-regulation plans—work rightly being done by the sector, for the sector. We are also putting forward new freedoms for highly performing colleges, including action to develop collective sector ownership of quality improvement, including identifying and managing poor performance. I am confident that, if and when Sir George makes other proposals for any of the relevant bodies, they will be actioned where appropriate.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Will the Minister let the Committee know whether that analysis includes a measurement of the impact of bureaucracy on colleges, whether he has had an interim report on that and when he expects George Sweeney’s work to be reported back to Parliament so that Members of the House can play a role in debating and considering the issues?

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

I hope that it will report back within a relatively short period, to Ministers and then to the House. There is also a bureaucracy reduction group, which is making significant progress. As an example of that, the number of documents sent out by the Learning and Skills Council to colleges between January and March this year was 60 per cent. lower than in the same three months last year. It is a simply unsustainable contention that progress is not being made.

I turn to the hon. Gentleman’s point about annual reports. I genuinely do not believe that the new clause is necessary, as robust mechanisms already exist to hold both Ofsted and the LSC to account for how they discharge their responsibilities. Both have a statutory duty to publish annual reports and for the reports to be laid before Parliament. The LSC must ensure that is makes the best use of its resources when carrying out its duties, and the chief inspector of Ofsted must perform all his functions efficiently and effectively.

Parliament also recently established new governance arrangements in the form of a statutory board for Ofsted to hold the chief inspector to account for its work. The bureaucracy reduction group, to which I referred a moment ago, produces an annual report on the progress of our large non-departmental bodies. Important progress is being made and accountability structures and reporting mechanisms are in place. That should provide the reassurance that the hon. Gentleman is looking for.

As well as that, we said on Tuesday that we would return to the matter of efficiency savings. I want to set the record straight: the creation of the Learning and Skills Council was a significant step forward for the further education sector. We would not have had such a degree of progress in improving performance were it not for the work that the LSC has undertaken. It brought much-needed coherence to post-16 learning, with year-on-year improvements in performance, and it makes more than £50 million of year-on-year savings compared with its predecessor bodies, which existed when the Conservative party was last in government, when more money was spent on bureaucracy and administration than today. We therefore know that we have saved the equivalent of £50 million a year by merging the TECs and the Further Education Funding Council. Since 2001-02, the percentage of total LSC expenditure spent on administration has gone down from 4.6 to 1.9 per cent. That clearly represents the ongoing commitment of both the Government and the council to ensure that as much funding as possible gets to the front line of FE.

The theme 7 restructuring will save a further £40 million a year—savings that are already being redirected to the front line. We have always made it clear that that is the same £40 million that has been mentioned frequently during the Bill’s passage through this House and the other place. The £40 million is a combination of the statutory and non-statutory changes dealt with in “Agenda for Change” theme 7 and the measures in this Bill. I am talking about the abolition of 47 local learning and skills councils, the creation of a regional structure, non-statutory local partnership teams and a slimmer national office, facilitating reductions of 1,100 staff and 600 non-executives.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It is important that the Minister has clarified that, because there was doubt on Second Reading and during earlier discussions in Committee. I want it to be crystal clear. The Minister has now said that the £40 million is the £40 million is the£40 million—there is no additional £40 million. Is that the £40 million reported in the 2006 annual report?

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

I have made this point on numerous occasions. The £40 million refers to both the theme 7 restructuring and the changes included and anticipated within this Bill. If the hon. Gentleman is in any doubt about that, I urge him to talk to the Learning and Skills Council staff, who have gone through a very difficult restructuring process, in which 1,100 posts have been removed from the system. That, plus associated reductions in administration and rationalisation of premises, results in the £40 million savings, so the cumulative administrative savings since 2001 come to £500 million, which rightly has been realigned to support learners and students. We will also continue to expect efficiency gains each year in order to put more money back into front-line provision. The Government are asking all non-departmental public bodies to reduce their administrative costs by 5 per cent. each year.

All that is in stark contrast to the erroneous picture that the Opposition painted on Second Reading. All of it falls dramatically short of the £1.8 billion that the Conservative party erroneously claimed was the figure for LSC administration and bureaucracy. There was clearly an organised operation on Second Reading. Three or four Conservative MPs cited that figure in, in my view, a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the situation. The actual amount that is being spent on administration and bureaucracy, having been reduced significantly, is £220 million. To exaggerate the sum for administration and bureaucracy ninefold is a bit rich, even by the Opposition’s standards of dodgy accounting.

I understand—I have done some work on this—that the figure that the Conservatives reached was established by including the sums spent in 2005-06 on learner participation, learner support, local intervention and development, capital and other programmes. If the Conservative party is really saying that, for example, education maintenance allowances, which have brought about an unprecedented step change in participation at the age of 16, amount to bureaucracy and administration, it needs to talk to the young people who, at the age of 16, are receiving such significant support.

Rob Wilson (Conservative, Reading East)

I want to pin the Minister down on this issue if we have time. He speaks glowingly of the Learning and Skills Council, so can he give the Committee a commitment today that the LSC will remain in more or less its current form for the remainder of this Parliament?

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

The commitment that I can give is this. If people look at the Foster report, the Leitch report and what the Government have said, they will see that there is a consistency about our belief that the Learning and Skills Council should continue to develop and evolve. The idea that we make progress by upping sticks, ripping up structures and starting again is not the way forward. We should be very firm in that view.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

In the event of a vote in the House this afternoon, I will adjourn the Committee for a quarter of an hour, or for half an hour if there is a subsequent vote, and so on.

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

I was in the process of dissecting the absurd and fictitious claim from the Conservatives that the Learning and Skills Council spends £1.8 billion on administration and bureaucracy.

It has become clear since those concerted claims were made on Second Reading that that figure has been cobbled together. Yes, it includes the £280 million that the LSC spends on administration and bureaucracy, but it also includes a further £1.5 billion, which most certainly is not spent on administration and bureaucracy, but which goes towards learner support, learner participation, local intervention, capital expenditure and educational maintenance allowances. To describe such expenditure as administration and bureaucracy is disingenuous, dishonest and downright deceitful.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister is making a great deal of this; I think that he is slightly scarred from my scathing attack on him earlier today and that he is hurt. Understandably, he wants to get back at me a bit. The truth is that I have looked at my speech on Second Reading, to which he is referring, and I cannot find the details that he describes in the form that he describes.

Indeed, I looked at the breakdown of the LSC’s expenditure, and its annual report makes it absolutely clear that £1.8 billion of expenditure is not spent directly with those providing training. That is not to say that it is all wasted money—of course it is not—but that was the only point that I made, and I wish that the Minister would move on a little and talk about the business before us, rather than this exaggerated series of claims that he is making about the Conservative Opposition.

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has intervened and I ask him to refer to what the hon. Member for Daventry said:

“Even attenuated, the total cost of the LSC bureaucracy comes to £1.8 billion—a very heavy burden, and it comes out of what is available for front-line education.”—[Official Report, 21 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 1020.]

Indeed, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings could also refer to what the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) said:

“We know that the current spend on administration alone in LSCs is £1.8 billion.”—[Official Report, 21 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 1059.]

If, as I gather from what the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is saying, we are seeing an indication that the cat is out of the bag and the Opposition are backtracking, that is something that I very much welcome. The message that he has sent out by describing that £1.8 billion of expenditure as administration and bureaucracy is that those areas are ripe for cuts. If that is the case, it will be an enormous cause for concern to those young people in receipt of education maintenance allowance, which has brought about the biggest step change in participation in education at the age of 16 since the early 1990s; those in receipt of the care to learn grant; those in receipt of career development loans; those in receipt of dance and drama awards; and the colleges, which have seen their capital expenditure go from zero 10 years ago to £500 million per year today. All those items make up the £1.8 billion.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister speaks of dance and drama awards. I have the LSC’s annual report here and he is absolutely right that serious money is spent on them—some £13.8 million. That contrasts with the £20 million spent by the LSC between 2003 and 2006 on management consultants. If we are to have a debate about bureaucracy and administration, let us have a straightforward one.

The Minister is right that not all the £1.8 billion spent is unnecessary—all organisations have administration costs—but the idea that the LSC is as lean and as fit as it might be would not resonate much up and down the country in the further education colleges, which desperately seek more funds to continue their excellent work.

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

We are seeing an eloquent, if misguided, attempt to backtrack. The claim that was clearly and explicitly made on Second Reading was that the LSC spends £1.8 billion on administration and bureaucracy. Today, we have demonstrated that that figure is £280 million, and I think that the hon. Gentleman is on the horns of a dilemma. I respect him and his integrity, based on his previous practice. Given his track record of integrity, he should either stand up and admit that the £1.8 billion figure used to describe administration and bureaucracy costs was a fabrication or signal the intention of a future Conservative Government to cut the programmes of education maintenance allowance, care to learn grants, career development grants, dance and drama awards, and capital expenditure. I will happily give way if he would like to intervene to clarify whether he acknowledges that the £1.8 billion claim was erroneous or, alternatively, that he intends to cut those expenditure programmes.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I will intervene to say that the only reference to that claim that I could find in anything that I have said in the House or elsewhere is drawn directly from the LSC’s annual report. That report says that more than £1 billion of the LSC’s annual budget of £10 billion does not reach bodies that provide training. That is not to say that all those management and administration costs are wasted; of course they are not. However, the Minister told the Committee, on this very day, that he is determined that the LSC should become ever more lean. Indeed, he told us that the LSC has cut the amount of paperwork that it sends to colleges by 60 per cent., which makes one wonder how much it was sending before.

We really must see an end to the discussion on the issue. You, Mr. Atkinson, will become impatient with it. Certainly the Committee is becoming impatient with it, as am I, despite my affection for the Minister.

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

My powers of perception are strong and I do not detect that Members on this side of the Committee are becoming dissatisfied with the debate. To be clear, the claim made on Second Reading by Conservative Members was that the LSC spends £1.8 billion on administration and bureaucracy. May I take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention to mean that he accepts that that claim is erroneous?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

With your indulgence, Mr. Atkinson, and the Minister’s generosity, I draw his attention plainly to the LSC’s accounts. It is true that the £1.8 billion that is not spent directly on providing training is allocated to all kinds of other things, but a substantial amount of that is spent on administration, pay costs, depreciation, local intervention, development and other programmes—both non-DFES and otherwise. Not all that money is wasted, but I do not believe that a budget that is bigger than that of the Royal Navy—

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Order. This intervention is extremely long and I ask the hon. Gentleman to bring it to a conclusion.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not believe that the Minister, in his heart and in all honesty, believes that the LSC could not be more efficient and effective, and I think that he would do the Government and the Committee a favour if he acknowledged that.

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

I certainly acknowledge that the LSC has done and will do everything in its power to reduce its administration costs. That is why the proportion of spend on administration and bureaucracy has reduced from 4.6 to 1.9 per cent. of total spend. I take it from that intervention that the hon. Gentleman now acknowledges that £1.8 billion is not spent on administration and bureaucracy. The figure is £280 million, and it does not serve anyone’s interests to fabricate figures in that manner and present a completely erroneous picture.

Returning, if I may, to the substance of the Opposition’s new clause—

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Hurray!

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

Perhaps the hon. Lady is happy to allow the Conservative party to make those fabricated claims, but the issue relates to a serious and important debate. The significant point is that those claims are part of the way that the Conservative party sells the pass and creates the impression that it can make room for tax cuts without affecting public spending.

It is clear that the new clause is unnecessary. We have made clear the moves toward self-regulation and the ongoing rationalisation in the learning and skills landscape. We have made clear the reductions in bureaucracy that have taken place, and made it abundantly clear that there are strong and substantive reporting mechanisms for the LSC and Ofsted. On that basis, I hope that the Conservative party will withdraw the motion.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

This is an extraordinary debate, because those on the Government Front Bench have not focused on the new clause. I tabled what I thought was a moderately worded proposal, requiring these matters to be analysed and then reported to the House. They intervened to ask exactly what form that report would take, what its findings would be and how we might respond to it. That seemed curious because the purpose of asking for a report is the expectation that there will be some kind of empirical analysis of the problem from which a reaction and a response might arise.

I have since been subject to what I can only describe as intimidation. I am a sensitive man, as you know, Mr. Atkinson—a sensitive, romantic high Tory—and the Minister has subjected me to a barrage of complaints about things that I have not said. I asked him to identify any mention in my speech on Second Reading of the matters that he has described, which he has failed to do. I reminded him that what I said had been fairly carefully worded because I do not like to say things that I cannot justify, although all politicians—I am not exempt from this—are subject, on occasion, to hyperbole. We do tend to dramatise for effect, as we saw from the Minister a few moments ago.

We have had no response to our sensible suggestion of a review and a report to Parliament, except from the hon. Member for Brent, East. She sensibly pointed out that the new clause should perhaps not be in the Bill, but should be taken seriously and considered by the Government. She is right that there is an issue with it being in the Bill, but, because of my absolute determination to hold the Government to account for the findings of the Foster report, which they commissioned, I am determined to press the matter. That report stated that the bureaucracy surrounding further education should be rationalised and that we should move with speed—indeed, with alacrity—towards self-regulation.

Sarah Teather rose—

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I shall give way to the hon. Lady just before reaching my exciting peroration.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

If the hon. Gentleman insists on pushing the new clause to a vote, the Liberal Democrats will abstain. While we sympathise with the point that he is making, the new clause should not be in the Bill. I have been consistent in not voting for things that would constitute over-regulation.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Lady makes a fair point, and the Minister has already made a convincing argument in Committee about what should and should not be included in Bills, based on the flexibility that all Governments need. If I were sitting in his place, I might take a similar view, but I am not sitting there—yet—so I am performing the proper role of the Opposition, which is to press the Government and hold them to account. It is critically important that we do so on the issue of the bureaucracy and its cumulative effect on our further education colleges. We would be selling our colleges short if we did not. It is therefore my intention to press the matter and also return to it at a later stage in our consideration.

On that note, may we have no more of this slightly over-dramatic treatment of these matters and return to the diligent and considered study of proposals, which I think would do the Committee and the House considerably better service.

Clause 22

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 31, in clause 22, page 15, line 4, at end insert ‘and

(c) the class must include organisations representative of persons who are liable to make payments by way of levy in consequence of the levy proposals.’.

You will know, Mr. Atkinson, that the levy system affects a small number of organisations that contribute to training in two particular sectors. We have debated the matter at length. It is a relatively technical affair and, from my discussions with Ministers, I understand that this part of the Bill is also technical and not intended to act as a catalyst for a change in that process.

It is perhaps worth saying for the record that, as Ministers know—we have discussed this publicly and privately—I support the way in which the levy system currently operates. There is a slight risk that by changing the way in which the representative organisations and employers work in this field, we might weaken take-up of the levy. Some employers—very small employers, new employers and employers who are going through changes of circumstance—are exempt from paying the levy. However, I am anxious that we should maintain the commitment to the levy from within the relevant industries and am therefore somewhat concerned—I put it no more strongly than that, for this is a probing amendment, as hon. Members may have guessed from what I have said—to ensure that we do not endanger that level of commitment by any albeit small changes that we might make.

I know that we broadly agree on this matter, but I am interested to hear the Minister’s reflections on it. I shall pose two or three questions that he may want to address, and then I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. First, I understand that there has been a decline in levy take-up over time, which we have discussed in Statutory Instrument Committees and elsewhere. I want to hear the Minister’s view on that and what we might do about it.

Secondly, what role do the sector skills councils play in all this? They seem to be a helpful tool in that respect. I do not think that they have a statutory role, but it would certainly be desirable for their involvement in the process to assist in the collection of and commitment to the levy that I have described.

Thirdly, it would perhaps be useful for the Committee to have some kind of profile of who pays the levy. In the construction industry, which is one of the industries involved, a broad range of types of business is liable to pay the levy. I would be interested to hear whether the smaller companies are depending on the very large companies, which, of course, pay the levy, and what the balance of payments is.

Those are all fairly narrow points, but I know that the Minister will appreciate that the questions have been posed in the interest of trying to get the provision right. I look forward to his response as to precisely why the changes proposed in this part of the Bill are, in his view, necessary.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks. The clause updates the legislation dealing with how an industrial training board shows that it has the support of employers to raise a levy. The changes made by the clause will give an ITB the freedom to consult employers in its industry more widely. That might include consulting any organisation authorised to speak on behalf of its members who are likely to pay the levy, seeking the views of a sample of employers or approaching employers directly in combination with any of those methods. We want industrial training boards to choose the consultation process that bests suits their industry. In all cases, they will need to satisfy the Secretary of State that the process that they followed was reasonable.

I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, but it would mean that organisations that represent sections of an industry must be consulted when ascertaining the level of support for levy proposals. That would constrain an ITB’s freedom of action in doing what I have just described—deciding the method by which to demonstrate support. That would not be helpful to the ITB, because it would constrain its responsiveness and flexibility in demonstrating that support. However, the hon. Gentleman made an important point in moving the amendment, which is the question whether it would undermine the commitment of employers to the levy if we were to go down that route.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that both the existing industry training boards—the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board—have always placed, and will continue to place, great strength on their relationships with industry federations that represent the various subsections of their industries. Those will include representatives from those federations, and it is clear from what the ITBs have told us that they have no desire to reduce the input of federations in any way.

We need to be more flexible, because it is 25 years since the Industrial Training Act 1982, and over that period industry structures have changed. An increasing proportion of employers have chosen not to join the employer federations, which means that although the ITBs have evidence that employers who are not federation members support the levy—they know that, because they have asked people—the legislation does not allow that evidence of support outside the federation to be taken into account when an ITB is justifying its levy.

In future, provided that the ITB can satisfy the Secretary of State that it has taken reasonable steps to ascertain the views of those persons whom the Secretary of State considers are likely to be liable to pay the levy in consequence of the proposals, the ITB can go on to demonstrate that it has industry support for its levy proposals in the manner best suited to the industry. That will, of course, include consulting representative organisations. We are keen to ensure that in situations where no such representative body might exist for future ITBs—proposals are coming forward from industry on that—they would not be prevented from demonstrating that they have the support of the industry, even though they have no federation. This is a mechanism allowing those industries to do so.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Under-Secretary is being reassuring about the purposes of this part of the Bill. In essence, it is a means of increasing flexibility, and by so doing, maintaining commitment. What kind of mechanisms might ITBs use to consult employers, if they are not using representative organisations as a conduit? When the 1982 Act was enacted, part of the reason for using representative organisations was that they provided a convenient vehicle for the type of consultation that we are describing.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

We have published draft indicative regulations about how an organisation might go about that. For example, it could take a sample of employers—not inside the federation but within the industry and subject to the levy—and do a sampling process of those employers. The regulations would give the hon. Gentleman the reassurances that he requires: there is a formal process that organisations have to go through in order to carry out surveys and sampling outside those bodies that are inside the federation of the ITB. That will be laid out in regulations, which I believe have already been circulated for members of the Committee to look at, so that he can be assured that those regulations are there. Essentially, the ITB will be able to demonstrate to the Secretary of State that there is industrial support, both from members of the federation and from those outside of it, through the sampling method. Those regulations include provisions about consulting representative organisations. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

I was tempted to take this opportunity to observe that levies can be used to fund apprenticeships, which would have given me a chance to comment on what the hon. Gentleman said earlier about apprenticeships. However, I guess that you would not allow me to stray so far from the clause, Mr. Atkinson.

I would not want to intimidate the hon. Gentleman by getting my violins out again and demonstrating that his accusations, which undermine the current apprenticeship system, are wholly unfounded and wrong. Rather, I invite him to celebrate success—both the expansion in the number of apprenticeships and the completion rates around the country. I shall be at the apprenticeship awards next week to give prizes to the employers and apprentices who are doing so much to raise skill levels.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I said at the outset of this Committee that your generosity and benevolence are legendary, Mr. Atkinson. The Minister has sought to prove me right by managing at the very end of his sensible comments on levies to launch into a series of remarks about apprenticeships, but I shall not follow him, because that would be wrong. I do not want to be seduced down an inappropriate path by the Minister. He has spoken sensibly about levies, on which we have similar views. This is not the time to explore the issue, but there might be capacity, as the film industry shows, for further voluntary levy systems, if an industry thinks that that is the right way to focus attention on the need for training and development. Both Opposition and Government would celebrate such a voluntary, industry-led approach to increasing commitment to training.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the film industry. Earlier, he referred to the role of sector skills councils in that regard. The ITBs are separate from SSCs. Perhaps, however, future legislation will introduce systems that will allow SSCs to develop more generally. Those might be considered favourably by both sides of the House, and I look forward to working with him when the time comes.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It is interesting that when the House is at its best in Committees such as this, an exchange of views can lead to the development of shared ideas. The Minister has drawn attention to an example—in this case, the role of the SSCs—that could be used as a model in other industries, although I accept that the particular character of the film industry makes that approach more straightforward than it might be in other cases. I would welcome the opportunity to share further views on it.

We have received assurances about the amendment and about this part of the Bill. I understand the need to move on from 1982, given the changing nature of the relationship between employers and representative organisations. I am a little anxious about the effect that that might have on the representative organisations, because there is the slight risk of a self-fulfilling prophecy of the decline in their influence. However, I accept that one has to be practical, and on the basis of the Minister’s very sensible comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 25

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Rather unexpectedly, this part of the Bill has been thrown into sharp focus. Not for the first time in this Committee, I have an admission to make. On Second Reading, I did not expect that as much emphasis would be placed on this clause in speeches from Government Back Benchers as was the case. I was slightly surprised. I would not mind betting that some on the Front Bench were slightly surprised as well about both the length and the nature of some of those speeches. However, that did, of course, alert me to certain serious matters that I must raise today in relation to the clause.

I am pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is here specifically in respect of clause 25. I felt a little sorry for him when we debated the earlier clauses as he sat expectantly waiting for us to hare towards clause 25, only to be treated to considerable debate on earlier clauses. However, I am pleased that he is here now, and I have no doubt that he will want to speak about this matter at some length.

For the benefit of the Committee, let me make it clear that the clause makes amendments to part 1 of schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006, so as to confer enhanced legislative competence on the National Assembly for Wales. These matters include, first:

“the provision of facilities for post-16 education and training”;

secondly, provision about institutions

“concerned with the provision of further education”,

including provision for the establishment and dissolution of such institutions and bodies conducting such education; thirdly, collaboration in relation to the delivery of post-14 education; fourthly, financial resources for education or training provided by further education institutions, post-16 education or training, and research related to such education and training; fifthly, inspection of

“education or training provided by institutions concerned with the provision of further education...post-16 education or training...the training of teachers....and specialist teaching assistants for schools”

and other services such as career services; and sixthly,

“The provision of advice and information...and the carrying out of studies in relation to...education or training provided by institutions concerned with the provision of further education...post-16 education or training...the training of teachers....and specialist teaching assistants for schools”

and other services such as career services.

Under the Government of Wales Act 2006, the National Assembly for Wales can seek to enhance its powers, given parliamentary consent, by way of a new procedure known as a legislative competence Order in Council. I do not know how much members of the Committee know about those orders. I have no doubt, Mr. Atkinson, that, given your encyclopaedic knowledge of the affairs of this House, you are familiar with them, but, to be frank, I certainly was not until I looked at clause 25. I now have a rather better knowledge of them than I would otherwise have had, and I have learned that the Government can indeed use those orders for the purpose that I have described. Indeed, that is the nature of those Orders in Council. Yet, in this instance, the Government have chosen to add schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 by primary legislation. In other words, they have opted in this Bill to add to that competence rather than pursuing an alternative route.

Just last month, the Welsh Affairs Committee reported its concerns about the continued use of primary legislation for this purpose. To some degree, that reflects the lively speeches that we heard from Welsh Members on Second Reading who were anxious about consultation, the process and whether the Bill was the right vehicle to do what it intends to do.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

This is a question about clarification, and it may be that the Minister has the answer. I wonder whether the Government chose to do this in this way because the 2006 Act had not come into force when this Bill began being debated in Parliament. Maybe the Minister will be able to answer me.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I wondered that too. I think that we will find, when the Minister responds, that he will not use that as his defence, because, having identified that as a possibility, I researched the issue and found that that was probably not the case—I see that the Minister is nodding, if not speaking, to confirm my analysis.

The Welsh Affairs Committee reported:

“We are concerned that continuing to use primary legislation to extend the powers of the National Assembly (in a parallel procedure to adding matters by way of Legislative Competence Orders) will mean that matters introduced in this way will escape the detailed arrangements for pre-legislative scrutiny”.

That is the point that hon. Members made on Second Reading. They felt that if the alternative process had been adopted, there would have been closer analysis of some of the proposals through pre-legislative scrutiny.

The Select Committee also said:

“It is unlikely that a single clause in a wider Bill would be subject to the same degree of scrutiny as a draft LCO, especially if the Bill is long and complex and the relevant clause appears towards the end of it...We are also concerned that the use of primary legislation denies the opportunity for joint working between the Welsh Affairs Committee and an Assembly committee in the pre-legislative scrutiny of proposed LCOs...We are concerned that to continue to add matters by primary legislation could therefore be a device for a general, rather than a specific, extension of Assembly powers, which at the same time negates the opportunity for specific and detailed pre-legislative scrutiny either by a committee of the National Assembly or by the Welsh Affairs Committee.”

For those reasons, and having looked closely at the Welsh Affairs Committee report on legislative competence Orders in Council, I have five specific questions for the Minister. Having come here and listened to the rest of the debate, he will get his money’s worth, and so he should.

Why was it decided to use primary legislation in this instance? I am aware of the difficulties of the minority Labour Administration in Wales—it is not easy now in Wales, or anywhere else, for the governing party. I congratulate my colleagues in the Welsh Conservative party on their splendid result in the recent Assembly elections. There are now 12 Conservative representatives in the Assembly.

By using parallel procedures, the Government have created confusing arrangements under which the extension of significant powers escapes detailed pre-legislative scrutiny by either the Welsh Assembly or the Welsh Affairs Committee. Some people have said to me—I do not think that it is the case, but it is a lively matter, particularly among Welsh colleagues—that the Government did not want the matter to be dealt with in the other way, because Welsh representatives would have created more fuss, would have asked more difficult questions and would have been more critical of some aspects, so it was easier to get the legislation through on the sly. I do not think that that is the case, because I do not think that these Ministers operate in that way. With their answers to my questions, they need to reassure those who are making such claims, however. On Second Reading, hon. Members expressed their concern. The former Secretary of State for Wales, no less, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) said:

“I am concerned, however, about the way in which we deal with the pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills and orders that give the National Assembly for Wales new legislative powers... this is not quite what was expected when the Government of Wales Bill was debated in this place.”—[Official Report, 21 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 1010.]

When the former Secretary of State issues an indictment of that strength, it is an important matter.

The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), the name of whose constituency I could not pronounce at the time, although I have been working on it—[Interruption.] I have not been working on it hard enough, by the sound of it, but I have been doing my best. He added:

“I am troubled—as was my right hon. Friend—by clause 25, which makes amendments to the Government of Wales Act 2006. If the clause is approved, it will transfer substantial responsibility to legislate for further education and training from Parliament to the National Assembly. Although I do not oppose the idea of using framework legislation to transfer power from Parliament to the Assembly, I think it wrong to do so without full parliamentary scrutiny of such a change to the devolution settlement...I am particularly worried after reading the memorandum prepared by the National Assembly in support of clause 25 and provided for us by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. The memorandum implies that the format set out in clause 25 for giving the National Assembly primary legislative powers will become the norm.”—[Official Report, 21 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 1015.]

Austin Mitchell (Labour, Great Grimsby)

I hate to see the hon. Gentleman troubled, because when he is troubled, the speeches get longer and we shuffle more in inattention. He is making heavy weather of the issue. Devolution is a process; it is not a full stop. What has gone before is not the end of the matter. It is a process of transferring more powers to the Assembly. Why does not he address the principle? Does he agree with the transfer to Wales of these powers?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The principle of transferring powers stands alongside the means of transferring them. If the allegation made by former Welsh Ministers that this matter has not been handled properly has any substance, then it deserves proper airing in this Committee. I am not making heavy weather of this. Let us be honest, the Government would not have put a Welsh Minister in this Committee if they did not think that it was a big deal. If the Government had expected the clause to be dealt with on the nod, the Minister would not be here ready to deal with it.

I have no doubt that Ministers and Whips were as surprised by the speeches on Second Reading as I was. Having looked at the clause, I think it is an important matter that warrants a little consideration in Committee. However, mindful of the comments of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion and put my four other questions for the Minister in short order.

Before I do so, however, I simply want to point out that the Secretary of State for Wales said this in a written answer to the right hon. Member for Torfaen:

“To assist parliamentary scrutiny, all framework powers granting wider and more permissive powers to the Assembly will be accompanied by an explanatory memorandum setting out the policy context underlying the proposals. Copies will be sent to all Welsh MPs and will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2007; Vol. 455, c. 661W.]

In those circumstances, it would have been right and proper to have made that information available to members of the Committee. I have checked, and I have not received the explanatory memorandum, and I have spoken to the hon. Member for Brent, East, who has not received it, too. I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends have received it. Certainly, when I went to the Library last night, the staff there could not locate it. I finally came across it this morning, when I returned to the Library—following a contact with the Department, it had become available. I got it about 10 minutes before I entered the Committee at 9 am. I am concerned about that. I do not suspect any lack of good will, but I certainly think that that was not appropriate, given the assurance that was made about fully informing Members in the way that responsible Ministers normally do. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.

The memorandum implies that the format set out in clause 25 for giving the National Assembly for Wales primary legislative powers will become the norm. Can the Minister confirm that it will become the norm? If so, what measures for pre-legislative scrutiny will be established? Has the clause been referred to the Welsh Affairs Committee, and has the Committee commented on it? If framework papers such as clause 25 extend the scope of the Welsh Assembly, are they not subject to scrutiny by the Welsh Affairs Committee in the same way as legislative competence orders?

I think that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby is right. In essence, this is about transferring power, which is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the way in which the Government have gone about it. The Government should be held to account, particularly when Members from both sides of the House are raising serious questions about whether the process allowed proper comment, scrutiny and discussion before we reached this stage.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I should like to make a few brief remarks. First, Liberal Democrats are very much in favour of transferring more powers to the Welsh Assembly. If we had our way, we would transfer all sorts of other things, but that is not under discussion today. I am less concerned about the process than the Conservatives. However, I am sorry that we did not have the chance to consider the explanatory memorandum and hope that we will have the opportunity to do so on Report, if questions arise.

Finally, it is notable that clause 17 does not allow Welsh colleges the freedom to award foundation degrees, and clause 25 does not give the Welsh Assembly the power to confer that freedom. Will the Minister tell us the reason for that decision?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

This is my first contribution to the Committee’s debates, Mr. Atkinson, and I belatedly welcome you to the Chair.

Some interesting points have been raised. As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings explained, he might not have spoken were it not for the contributions made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Torfaen and for Islwyn. Both are genuinely my friends: I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former when he was Secretary of State for Wales, and I was the Whip and business manager at the Wales Office when the latter was doing my present job. However, those comments did not come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman. I have had a number of discussions with my right hon. Friends; they have genuine concerns, and I shall address them today.

I owe the Committee an apology about the explanatory memorandum. Two Acts have used primary legislation to pass legislative competence to the Welsh Assembly. The first was the NHS Redress Act 2006, and the second was the Education and Inspections Act 2006. Both went through without great comment being made on the transfer of powers to the Assembly. The practice followed for the Bill was the same as used for those Acts. I wrote to all Welsh Members of Parliament and to the Welsh affairs Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen in both Houses—in the Commons, it is the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan)—to explain what was happening, drawing their attention to the relevant clauses and enclosing an explanatory memorandum.

It was an omission that the Committee did not receive that explanatory memorandum, and I apologise. It would certainly have been better if hon. Members had had a copy to hand. However, irrespective of the experience of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, a copy was in the Library, and it is unfortunate that it was not readily to hand when he first requested it. I hope that he accepts my answer. We are not trying to get the provision through on the sly, or we would not have written to Members of both Houses informing them that the relevant clauses allowed the transfer of powers and provided them with a copy of the explanatory memorandum.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions—he said that there were four or five, but I counted only three, so perhaps there were some sub-questions. He asked why the primary legislative route had been taken rather than the Order-in-Council procedure. The answer is simple. It is a question of timing. At the moment, the National Assembly for Wales is conducting an independent review of further education in Wales. That review will be reporting in the autumn. If, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn wanted, we were to wait until the report was completed and thus have far more detail about what was to be placed in a framework power or an Order in Council, there would be considerable delay. In fact, following the Government of Wales Act 2006, there are two routes through which legislative competence can be transferred to the Assembly, namely primary powers and the Order-in-Council procedure.

Because the Order-in-Council process—an hour and a half debate in this place and an hour and a half debate in the other place—is not amendable, we have encouraged the Welsh Affairs Committee to undertake the pre-legislative scrutiny of Orders in Council, although we cannot demand that it does so. We have encouraged it to take on that role, because the opportunities for Members of this House and of the other place to scrutinise Orders in Council are extremely limited. Orders in Council are unamendable and, although they are debatable, the answer at the end of the debate is either yes or no.

We have always argued that we already have sufficient powers to examine the proposal to transfer the competence from this place to the National Assembly—indeed, we are scrutinising the clause today—and we are drawing attention to these matters by the distribution of the explanatory memorandum to relevant hon. Members. I am sure that we will give an adequate response to the Welsh Affairs Committee report that highlights the issue. The open evidence sessions that the Government have introduced at the beginning of Public Bill Committees provide a further opportunity for scrutiny.

Because of the legislative timetable, the problem for any Government, irrespective of their views about pre-legislative scrutiny—this Government are great advocates of pre-legislative scrutiny and of draft Bills—is that there is not always time to provide a draft Bill, to inform a Select Committee that a particular Bill is being produced or to allow for that Committee to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government’s record on having tried to improve the scrutiny of our legislative process is excellent. In our response to the Welsh Affairs Committee, we will highlight the issues and mention some of the ways in which we can assist not only that Committee but all Members to scrutinise the matter as much as possible.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister is dealing with the matter in a considered and professional way. He seems to be saying that it is sometimes better to handle matters through primary legislation, because that allows for the sort of full and open debate that we are having here. However, the Welsh Affairs Committee is particular, as he has identified, about the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny, especially in the sort of case in which, in its terms, primary legislation could be a device for a general, rather than a specific, extension of powers.

The Bill has had a long journey through the House. It started in the Lords some time ago, and it has been a cause of frustration among Opposition Front Benchers that it has taken so long to reach this Committee. Was the Welsh Affairs Committee involved at all—that is one of my five questions, of which I shall remind the Committee at the end—in this piece of legislation? If it was, although the Minister’s points are being made in good faith, we still have a problem.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

My problem is that I cannot request the Welsh Affairs Committee to undertake any inquiry or any pre-legislative scrutiny, so it was not invited to do so. However, every member of that Committee received a letter signed by me, including a copy of the explanatory memorandum, which goes into considerable detail about what is proposed. I know all the Committee members extremely well, including the three Conservative members of the Committee and the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman. If they had genuine concerns about the Bill and what was being transferred to the Assembly, they would have drawn them to the attention of the Chairman and requested some form of inquiry or pre-legislative scrutiny. They have had time to do that, and I assume that they decided that they did not want to, so it was not a question of my inviting them. I drew to the attention of every member of that Committee that the clause was going through the House, and I provided an explanatory memorandum. It was for them to make that decision, which I could not direct them to take. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that point.

I have touched on the explanatory memorandum and what the norm will be. We will cover this in our response to the Welsh Affairs Committee report. We will provide every opportunity, given the time constraints in our legislative programme, for pre-legislative scrutiny. We are not in the business of trying to slip any of this through. In this case, even though there has been criticism, we were forewarning people of what was coming through and what was being proposed.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I emphasise that I have no doubts about the Minister’s good will. What discussions did he have with the Assembly? Presumably there were formal discussions with the Assembly about this important change. What form did they take, when were they and with whom?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

There is a process between officials in the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills in the Assembly. Once it was known that the Bill was coming, the process of discussions at official level to bring forward a framework power started. The White Paper preceding the Government of Wales Act 2006, which was published in September 2005, identified that one of the ways to give legislative competence to the Assembly was through this primary legislative route, where framework powers would be included, where appropriate, in UK or England and Wales pieces of legislation. We flagged that up then, and since then we have had the NHS Redress Act 2006 and the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which have given framework powers in those areas.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I hear what the Minister has said about discussions between officials, but for the record there have been no formal discussions with Members of the Assembly. There has been no opportunity for the Assembly to comment on or discuss the implications of this change in primary legislation, which is quite significant in respect of further education in Wales.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

No, that is not the case. I attended the Education and Lifelong Learning Committee in February—it is their equivalent of our Select Committee—to answer questions from Assembly Members on this Bill, the framework powers and so on. There has been that relationship. I also have regular bilateral talks with Assembly Ministers, where these matters are discussed. There has been considerable involvement by the Assembly itself in taking forward and developing the clause.

I think that I have responded to all the hon. Gentleman’s questions and points. The hon. Member for Brent, East, going back to clause 17, asked why clause 25 does not give further education colleges in Wales the power to award foundation degrees. Wales is a small country with only 25 FE colleges. Its further and higher education consortia have a good reputation for working together. They enable education institutions to provide a wide range of opportunities for learners through the sharing of resources, such as staff, equipment and infrastructure. The current evidence base suggests that delivery should continue to be via consortia arrangements between further and higher education providers.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

It is not clear to me how that differs from the situation in England. In one of Tuesday’s sittings, all sides agreed that there are good models in England for collaboration between FE and HE institutions.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The FE colleges in Wales are not demanding degree-awarding powers. One or two might be, but others are perfectly satisfied with the current consortia arrangements that they have with HE institutions. As I said in my response to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, however, an independent review of further education in Wales is under way, so the issue will be raised by Fforwm, which represents FE institutions in Wales. Individual colleges may also make their case and the review will consider that.

If there is a clear recommendation that degree-awarding powers be given to FE institutions in Wales and the Assembly agrees with it, there will be the option to bring that forward as an Order in Council, but there is not anywhere near as much pressure in Wales as there is in England for FE institutions to have degree-awarding powers. That is why the measure has not been included in the clause.

I am conscious of the time. I think that I have responded to all the points that hon. Members have made.

Rob Wilson (Conservative, Reading East)

I should like to press the Minister further on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings regarding consultation with Welsh Assembly Members. The Minister suggested that there was a significant level of consultation with them, but the right hon. Member for Islwyn said on Second Reading that no consultation had taken place. Was he just badly briefed? Was he out of touch? Why would he say that no consultation had taken place? A trend seems to be developing: no consultation with the universities, no consultation with the Assembly. It all sounds a bit haphazard and rushed.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that there was wide consultation. Fforwm, which is the equivalent of the Association of Colleges in England, is aware of the proposals and has welcomed them. As I said, I attended and gave evidence to the relevant Committee in the Assembly. Of course, we will not know the precise detail of what the Assembly will ultimately propose until the independent review has reported in the autumn. If the clause is passed by the House, the Assembly will bring forward an Assembly Measure, which is primary legislation— the equivalent of an Act of Parliament—that goes through exactly the same level of scrutiny as does primary legislation in this place. At that point, it would consult on the detail of the Measure.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was making a genuine point, but I can assure him that there will be considerable consultation, and not just through the process of the independent review. Once that review makes its recommendations, and if they are accepted by the Assembly, there will be thorough scrutiny of any Assembly Measure.

The clause delivers the deepening of the Welsh devolution settlement, which is UK Government policy. It ensures that the National Assembly for Wales has the power that it needs, when it needs it, to debate and determine the appropriateness of proposals for the development of further education in Wales that are put forward by the Welsh Assembly Government. It is, therefore, an important clause and I hope that the Committee will give it full support.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am grateful to the Minister for coming to the Committee and giving us the benefit of his advice. I asked five questions. First, I asked why it was decided to use primary legislation in this instance. The Minister said that it was because it would enable us to have a wider debate—I guess—on the subject. That seemed to be the inference of his answer. Secondly, I asked him why the explanatory memorandum was not sent to members of the Committee, and he has generously apologised for that oversight. I think that we have learned a lesson from that oversight and in future it is absolutely necessary that that type of material is made available to members of the Committee. Thirdly, I asked him whether this process was going to become the norm, in terms of the use of primary legislative powers. I am not absolutely sure that I received an answer to that question. Forgive me, but I am going to ask him to return to question three.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

On that point, there are two routes to confer primary legislative powers on the Assembly. One is through the Order in Council process; I did not want to go on at huge length about that, but I think that I explained it. The second is through primary legislation in this place.

Perhaps I ought to take a step back, to explain matters. The White Paper that we published in September 2005 addressed the issue of how to enhance the legislative capability of the National Assembly for Wales, following on from the Richard report a few years before. The problem that was identified was that the Wales Office, through the Welsh Assembly, had to compete with all other UK Government Departments for a slot in the legislative process. We felt that that was wrong. Therefore we proposed two routes for giving the Assembly enhanced powers. One is the Order-in-Council process, which is part 3 of the Government of Wales Act 2006. The other route, which was announced in the White Paper, was that, where appropriate, a UK Government Department would draft its legislation to allow these framework powers to transfer primary legislative powers to the Assembly. So, that process will be the norm whenever a suitable vehicle—a platform in UK legislative terms—comes along. If there is not such a suitable vehicle and the Assembly needs the legislative competence, it can gain it through the Order-in-Council process.

The Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, was referring to the fact that it is not since the early 1990s that we have had a Further Education Bill going through the House. Obviously, that would be far too long a period of time for the Assembly, which has all the Executive functions that my hon. Friend has but, unlike my hon. Friend, does not, at the moment, have the ability to legislate. That is why we will use UK Government Bills as a platform to transfer powers to the Assembly, in a process that is properly scrutinised by this place.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I thank the Minister. What is emerging from this debate is that, in its response to the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Government will clarify exactly when these different routes are appropriate, and it may depend on the legislation itself. Alternatively, it may depend on the legislative history of the subject area, in the way that the hon. Gentleman has just described. I would even imagine that it may depend on the complexity of the material and therefore the need for detailed pre-legislative scrutiny. There is beginning to emerge, certainly on this side of the Chamber, an understanding of precisely where the Government’s thinking is leading. It is an iterative business, and I guess that as the Government respond to the welfare state, within the dialogue that takes place between them, that will all become clearer.

For the record, the fourth and fifth questions—so that Hansard can get an absolutely accurate picture of every word that I issued—were about whether the matter had been referred to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee and whether it had been invited to comment. The hon. Gentleman told us in response that it had been “notified”, but that it had been up to the Committee to decide what to do, rather than him. Finally, the answer to my fifth question—whether the Committee had commented—is clearly no, given the comments that were made on Second Reading and elsewhere.

This has been helpful. We are learning. Perhaps if there had been a greater exchange of information in all kinds of ways, the comments that were made on Second Reading, which stimulated the detailed discussions that we have today, would not have been made. However, in a way, perhaps it is good that we have had those discussions, because they have allowed us full discussions of this process, in the way that the hon. Gentleman has dealt with the matters. We will not want to divide the Committee.

Schedule 1

Schedule 2

Clause 29

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I beg to move amendment No. 12, in clause 29, page 19, line 40, at end insert—

‘“accredited voluntary body” means any voluntary body which is at the relevant time accredited by a recognised organisation or by a body or group of people approved by a recognised organisation for purposes including the bestowal of such accreditation;

“compulsory school age” has the same meaning as in section 8 of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56);’.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 13, in clause 29, page 19, line 42, at end add—

‘“school” means—

(a) a maintained school;

(b) an Academy;

(c) a city technology college;

(d) a city college for the technology of the arts;

“young person” means a person who is—

(a) in his last year of compulsory schooling; or

(b) over compulsory school age but has not yet attained the age of 19.’.

No. 14, in clause 30, page 20, line 4, after ‘24,’, insert

‘[Assessment of students in last year of compulsory schooling], [Mentors for young persons], [Provision for young persons with special educational needs and disabilities], [Community leadership programmes],’.

No. 16, in clause 31, page 20, line 24, at end insert—

‘(3A) The following provisions apply to England only—

sections [Assessment of students in last year of compulsory schooling], [Mentors for young persons], [Provision for young persons with special educational needs and disabilities] and [Community leadership programmes].’.

New clause 3—Assessment of students in last year of compulsory schooling

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall arrange for an assessment of every student to be carried out at some time during the student’s last year of compulsory schooling.

(2) An assessment of a student under subsection (1) shall result in a personal profile setting out an assessment of—

(a) his educational achievements to date;

(b) his other extra-curricular achievements;

(c) his post-16 educational and training aims and requirements;

(d) the most effective way of achieving his post-16 educational and training aims and requirements; and

(e) his other interests and skills.’.

New clause 4—Mentors for young persons

‘(1) Every young person shall be entitled to access to a person (“mentor”) who shall have individual responsibility to give guidance and advice to the young person.

(2) Where the young person is a student, the mentor shall be nominated by the school at which he is a student.

(3) Where the young person is in training or employment, the mentor shall be nominated by the person who provides the training or employment for the young person.

(4) The mentor may be selected from any accredited voluntary body which provides services for young persons.

(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the mentor’s duties shall include—

(a) assisting the young person in preparation for undertaking post-16 full-time and part-time education qualifications;

(b) assisting the young person in preparation for post-16 training;

(c) advising on career development and employment opportunities; and

(d) advising on acquiring other skills and on other opportunities, including engaging in voluntary work.

(6) The mentor shall arrange meetings on a regular basis with each young person for whom he is responsible.

(7) The meetings referred to in subsection (6) may be held in person or through other means of communication.’.

New clause 5—Provision for young persons with special educational needs and disabilities

‘(1) This section applies when a local educational authority maintains a statement of special educational needs for a young person under section 324 of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56).

(2) A local education authority shall arrange for the provision of advice and information of the type described in subsection (3) to—

(a) young persons in their area with special educational needs or who are disabled; and

(b) parents or guardians of young persons in their area with special educational needs or who are disabled.

(3) The advice and information mentioned in subsection (2) shall include advice and information about—

(a) post-16 full-time and part-time education;

(b) post-16 training;

(c) career development and employment opportunities; and

(d) acquiring other skills and opportunities, including engaging in voluntary work.’.

New clause 6—Community leadership programme

‘(1) The Secretary of State may provide or secure the provision of services to encourage, enable or assist (directly or indirectly) the creation of programmes for young persons to develop skills and qualifications.

(2) The programmes referred to in subsection (1) shall in particular make provision for the development of leadership skills and skills for future employment.

(3) In securing the provision of the services referred to in subsection (1) the Secretary of State may, in particular—

(a) consult voluntary bodies which provide youth and adult training, training in skills, management and enterprise, community projects, training and employment schemes and services, including those for young persons with special educational needs or those with disabilities;

(b) make arrangements with local education authorities and other persons for the provision of such services; and

(c) direct local education authorities to provide such services, to secure the provision of such services or to participate in the provision of such services.’.

Amendment No. 10, in title, line 6, after ‘training;’, insert

‘to make provision about post-16 education and training;’.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

This group of amendments and new clauses relates to improving the system of pastoral care created by supporting and mentoring that exists for 16 to 18-year-olds who undertake some form of training or education after 16, as defined in amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 16 which seek additions to clause 29. The new clauses, to which I shall relate most of my remarks, set out those four improvements.

New clause 3 would establish in law what is already best practice in a number of schools and colleges, where a personal record of achievement is given to students. However, what is critical, which is outlined in the clause, is that it should not record academic achievement only, but other skills that have been demonstrated, including any voluntary or community work that has been undertaken. In addition, it would set out the learning aims for post-16 education and training, and how those aims can best be met, as well as, more generally, what the young person wants to achieve in their future learning. The reason why this is so important is that the degree of careers advice, the quality of that advice, and the pastoral care that 16 to 18-year-olds receive, have an important role in shaping the future career patterns of that young person. If the school or college gets it wrong, it can have a devastating impact, at least in the short term. I shall give a brief example from my constituency.

A couple of months ago, a young person and her mother come to my surgery. I am not going to say which FE college she was attending—I do not want to embarrass anyone—but the daughter was taking a diploma in health and social care. She wanted a career in the caring professions, but for reasons that no one can quite understand she was advised by the college to do physiotherapy. She did not have the background or aptitude, or even the wish, to study that subject.

When she came to my surgery, she had been rejected by all the institutions to which she had applied. Within three minutes I was able to understand that she wanted to do social work, but by then it was too late in the applications process for her to apply to study social work for the following year. As a result, she is going to have to take a year out. That might be character building for her, but it is not what she wants to do. It points to a weakness that sometimes exists in the careers advice available to FE colleges and schools. I hope to have demonstrated through that example how important it is to have the best advice, and for the person giving that advice to take the time to talk to the young people and to be clear about what they want to achieve in their future careers.

New clause 4 would give all young people undertaking post-16 study a mentor from the school or business, or an appropriate voluntary-sector body, depending on where the education and training is taking place. The mentor would need to give advice on future training routes, on possible employment opportunities and career development, and on how young people might acquire other skills to enhance their life opportunities.

Such mentoring is important to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who recently raised the matter in a private Member’s Bill. He was most concerned, as am I, about the number of young people who are not in employment, education or training. He argued that if, prior to 16 and immediately afterwards, young people could get a mentor to talk to them about the importance of staying on in education or training and advising them of the best routes, some of those who are not taking up such opportunities might take them. It is a critical role and it would require a skilled person to give such advice.

New clause 5 asks that the provision of mentoring advice and support be made available to post-16s in education. It applies also to those who have special needs. The Minister will know that the review of special educational needs undertaken last year by the Education and Skills Committee identified the problem that young people with special educational needs do not always get good advice or proper support to enter further education or to undertake post-16 education in some other format.

There certainly seem to be some weaknesses in the current system. It was found that more direct support was needed to encourage young people with special educational needs to take up further education opportunities. The argument behind the clause is that if there was better careers advice, better mentoring and better support for young people with special educational needs, they would be able to take up more opportunities for post-16 education.

New clause 6 seeks to make a requirement of what I think is already best practice in a number of schools and colleges—providing young people with a range of opportunities to undertake voluntary work in their local communities that would enable them to acquire and develop leadership skills. The new clause argues for a wide range of opportunities to be made available, such as a Duke of Edinburgh award scheme, or a limited version of it that could take place locally. Thanks to a meeting that I had recently with young people from some of the secondary schools in my constituency, I know how much that is needed. They are very keen to undertake some sort of community work locally, but they simply do not have the connections with the community groups that would enable them to do that. We have put a set of recommendations to local schools to the effect that they should try to enhance the number of activities that are available to young people to enable them to play a greater role in their communities.

Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Rugby and Kenilworth)

I am interested in the proposals that the hon. Lady outlines, and I have two questions. The first relates to new clause 6. Is she at all concerned that the rubric that it sets out might limit the diversity of activities available through the voluntary sector? In many cases, they are attractive to young people precisely because they are delivered through the voluntary sector without the overlay, consultation and interest of the state. Secondly, has she any estimate as to what all the proposals will cost?

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that activities would be limited. In fact, I believe the opposite. The whole point is to spread to schools that might not already provide them a range of opportunities for young people to undertake community work or some other activity that would benefit their local community. That seems to be a sensible and laudable thing to do. To answer his second point, I hope that the cost would not be prohibitive. Some schools—in fact, a great many of them—already make some form of provision, but it would help if they could focus their efforts to ensure that the opportunities are available to all young people.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

Is the hon. Lady aware that Surrey has a scheme that allows all schools to buy in to it? The Surrey school where I spent a week shadowing last September has a scheme for sixth-formers that is run and co-ordinated by the borough council. The range of activities that it offers are partly structured and partly accessed by young people through an introduction to opportunities to volunteer that exist in other schools. It works well because it operates right across the borough.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

I thank the hon. Lady. That is the sort of best practice that we want to see extended elsewhere as a result of the new clauses.

If our proposals do not become law, what is the Minister going to do to ensure that schools, colleges and others providing post-16 education adopt the best practice on pastoral care that is created by mentoring and community activity?

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

May I recommend to the hon. Lady the project at Havering college called ROSE? That stands for realistic opportunities for supported employment for students with learning difficulties. It enables them to transfer from education to employment with the help of local employers. Each student has a job tutor who stays with him or her all day to start with, and is gradually weaned off that relationship over, say, six months until independent. I am sure that other colleges would benefit from sharing that example of good practice.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

The scheme that the hon. Lady outlines appears to be an example of best practice relating to the employment needs of young people. That is exactly what we would like to see elsewhere.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I rise to support the amendments and new clauses in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham.

It is worth bearing in mind that the present provisions relate to the transition at the age of 16 from formal schooling and education to post-16 education—the 16-to-19 phase and above. As a country, we spend a lot of time focusing on the needs of young people as they move from primary to secondary school—from key stage 2 to key stage 3. The Government and the Department for Education and Skills have recognised the problems of transition, and a lot of new ideas are being implemented to deal with the transition from key stage 2. Is it not therefore about time that we paid more attention to what happens to young people at the end of the key stage 4, when they leave school to move into the adult world?

The idea that we need to do something is supported by evidence showing that too many people still leave school at 16, or nearly 17. They then become NEETs, which I always think is an unfortunate name for those who are not engaged in education, employment or training, because it sounds slightly insulting. The other interesting point is that many of the young people who end up as one of those unfortunate statistics do so after a further year of formal education. It is when people reach 17, or in some cases nearly 18, that the figures start to rise, and that is certainly the case in my area. That says something about the lack of support that exists for young people once they move on from formal school and education. We therefore need to do something, and I am pleased to see the proposals before us.

Let me briefly remind the Committee of why we need to do something. It is not only that such a situation represents a terrible waste of the talent and abilities of the individuals concerned or of the opportunities available to society, but that the country cannot afford to lose such abilities, because—it is worth making this point over and over again—we are competing in a global economy. This country can succeed internationally only if its people are sufficiently skilled to allow it to stay ahead of the field and at the competitive edge of international markets. For that reason alone—to ensure the future prosperity of our country and of all our young people as they move through adult life—it is important that we put all the necessary measures in place from year 10 onwards, and indeed earlier, so that we get things right.

New clause 3 is particularly useful because it implies that the measures outlined need to be clearly in place pre-16, and I would argue that a seamless programme of support should be available to young people from year 7 or 8 onwards. It also implies the need for clear collaboration to ensure that crystal clear career pathways are available to young people once they are in secondary education so that they no longer have a sense of confusion, as they often do at the moment, about what they should do next, what options they should pursue from year 9 onwards and what they should do once they leave school.

Clear career routes and professional pathways are a critical part of a young person’s education, and new clause 3 suggests to some extent the steps that are necessary to ensure that we get all that right. Several local authorities across the country are already working hard on the issue, and the 14-to-19 work that is going on in places such as Knowsley, Wolverhampton and Sheffield is fantastic. The Government need to learn from all that, and they are indeed doing so, but they need to continue learning and putting in place measures to address the issues as they arise. To some extent, that is what new clause 3 does.

New clause 4 is equally important. It is not just that young people do not go on at 16 or drop out of full-time education or employment and training at 17, they sometimes get on the wrong courses. That is a big issue in FE.

I know that because I have been there and I have seen young people on the wrong courses. I know of the pressures that force tutors to encourage young people to take up places on courses because they are desperate to make up their numbers. That is just not on. In the end it is a short-term measure which unravels because the young people end up dropping out. They are not in the right place and they are not doing the right course. That is one of the reasons why at age 17 the numbers of young people classed as NEETs rise.

There is a need for independent information, advice and guidance. Let us get the concept of independence clearly on the table. It is extremely important. It is important to have mentors for other reasons. Many young people between the ages of 16 and 19 are incredibly ambitious. They are much more ambitious than my generation ever was. They are keen to earn money and to get the things that we never thought of having until we were in our early 20s. A lot of young people want to buy a car. They want to enjoy life. When I was 17 I thought that I would enjoy life when I was a bit older and earning the money to do it.

When I was a tutor I often found that young people came into college in the morning absolutely shattered. They were almost falling asleep because they had been working at the local Morrisons on the night shift. That is a real issue in many parts of the country. The education maintenance allowance has done a great deal to address that problem, but let us not underestimate how ambitious many young people are to have money in their pockets. That is a very good thing, but we need mentors to ensure that young people are advised about the importance of getting the right balance between work, study and play.

That balance is encouraged very well in university and higher education institutions, but it is almost non-existent in FE. Usually it is down to the tutor to say to the young person, “Come on, you are doing too much here. You need to hold back a bit. Your studies are suffering. Cut down your hours and let us get this sorted out.” That is a very difficult message to pass on to a young person, especially one from a deprived background where there is no parental income to supplement their lifestyle. These are the people whom we need to help the most.

New clause 5 is very close to my heart. Young people with special educational needs and severe disabilities are almost completely ignored by the post-16 education system. Improvements have been made in recent years, but they tend to be piecemeal. In Sheffield, the special school for young people on the autistic spectrum and with communication disorders has established a relationship with the FE college and developed pathways post-16 for a number of young people on that spectrum. However, provision is not comprehensive, because the support mechanisms are not in place for children post-16 with special needs. That area of SEN provision that has been neglected for a long time, and the new clause is a start to the process of looking seriously at the issue.

A great deal has been done in recent years on SEN. In Sheffield, our special schools have been almost completely rebuilt. The programme is almost complete, so I want it on the record now that the Government have done a great deal to help SEN education in terms of the buildings and the range of options that we offer young people through to the age of 16. Now, having congratulated the Government on that record, I say that it is time to start thinking about that post-16 period, because it has been neglected for a long time. The problem has not begun to occur recently, because it has been happening for generations.

Attitudes have moved on: 20 or 30 years ago nobody gave much thought to what happened to young people once they left school at 16 if they were disabled or had serious learning difficulties. It was all right for them to stay at home watching television all day and for parents and carers to have to cope with all that. Society has moved on, however, and we are now not prepared to tolerate such a waste of a young person’s life or the strain that such responsibilities can put on parents and carers. It is now time to address the particular needs of that section of the school population.

Rob Wilson (Conservative, Reading East)

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady, particularly with regard to the neglect to which she says young people over the age of 16 have been subjected. Does she think that that is why the number of young people not in education, employment or training has grown since 1997?

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I have not said that. That section of the population rarely had access to such provision in the first place. For generations, its needs have been ignored, which is the whole point of my argument. This Government have focused on special educational needs, but it is now time for them to focus on the post-16 educational needs of that section of the population.

I should like briefly to draw attention to new clause 6. The Duke of Edinburgh award is successful in my city. Traditionally, it tended to focus on schools in the richest part of the city, but it has moved forward in recent years. It has worked well with the local authority, and it now works in the vast majority of our schools. That partnership, as well as the wider education partnership in the city, has attempted to reach out to young people from deprived communities, who would not traditionally have thought of achieving a Duke of Edinburgh award. That answers the point that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth made about state intervention in the voluntary sector. I understand his point, but a sensible partnership between the voluntary sector and state education can encourage and increase young people’s involvement in voluntary activities.

The Duke of Edinburgh award is a sterling example of a programme that is not only enjoyable for young people, but improves their employability. I know for a fact that it is highly regarded by employers, although I do not forget that a number of voluntary leadership and skills development programmes are available to young people, which is important because not every young person is suited to the Duke of Edinburgh award.

I commend the new clauses to the Committee. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham about the best practice suggested by the new clauses. I hope that the Minister will feel able to tell us how that best practice can be embedded in our education system.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

I want to make a few broadly supportive remarks. I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham for tabling these useful new clauses. She is absolutely right about the patchy nature of careers advice in this country; in some places, for some young people, it is good, but for many others it is either difficult to access or not of high enough quality, and it often lacks adequate ambition to push young people forward. In my constituency, sadly, the options are often tailored to the expectations of a particular type of young person and do not reflect all the things that they might be able to achieve.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough spoke well about the importance of extending access, particularly for young people with special educational needs beyond the age of 16. During the course of the Bill, many charitable organisations have raised with me the fact that it is often difficult for such young people, especially those with physical or learning disabilities, to access provision.

There are three issues that I would prefer to be separated—mentoring, careers advice and volunteering. The details of the three issues are slightly conflated. Mentoring is something that should extend to all young people at all stages of education, and it should probably take place within the school or college setting. Careers advice, however, is different. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough has used the word “independent” several times, and careers advice should be independent. That is crucial, especially if one is trying to raise expectations and give tailored advice to the young person. We need to get away from the type of prejudices that, sadly, can occur within a school, where people, over a long period of time, have come to know the performance or behaviour of a young person. I would like to see careers advice taken away from that setting. In a sense, therefore, I would like to separate careers advice and mentoring. Mentoring is about pastoral care. Careers advice will obviously include a pastoral element, and a student may wish to discuss the advice that they receive from a careers adviser with their mentor, but careers advice has to happen independently.

Furthermore, 16 is far too late for careers advice to start. I know that both hon. Members who spoke on this subject, the hon. Members for City of Durham and for Sheffield, Hillsborough, said that, but it needs to start at 11. Hon. Members will have heard me witter on about the Tomlinson report at great length at every opportunity. Certainly, my vision is a flexible approach for 14 to 19-year-olds, so that young people can move between vocational and academic courses at all stages between 14 and 19. However, if we are to have that type of system, there must be access to good, independent careers advice from the earliest stage and right the way through the system, because the system will not work without it.

With regard to the ideas about volunteering, I am very sympathetic to the points that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough has suggested. Personally, I would not want to see this matter dealt with in legislation, unless the legislation were a good less detailed than this Bill and only enabling legislation. Volunteering is the type of issue that can be dealt with perfectly well by encouraging local authorities to set up their own schemes and encouraging schools to collaborate. Volunteering does not tend to work terribly well with one school, and it is often necessary to have more opportunities that schools can explore by collaborating with each other. That is certainly an issue that local authorities could take a lead on.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

This is a useful series of amendments and new clauses, and it has enabled us to speak about the context in which the Bill will fit. The speeches so far have made those contextual points powerfully.

We should be frank about the dilemmas that we face, not as party politicians but as public policy makers. The first of three dilemmas that I want to highlight during this short debate is the conflict between the importance of investing early in a child’s life in the core skills that are necessary for all other educational progress, and the need to rescue those young people who have been failed by the system.

Dealing with that conflict is very difficult for the Government, because roughly 45,000 young people who leave school each year are functionally illiterate and/or innumerate—they are not entirely illiterate or innumerate, but they are functionally so. Many of those young people, although not all of them, will become NEETs. Much of the Government’s focus, therefore, has been on skills for life and ensuring that those young people have a second chance, and one understands why the Government have taken that view. Who could argue otherwise, and why would we not want to bring those young people back into learning? However, focusing on that problem prompts two questions. If public policy attention and resources are focused there, does that mean that there is less to spend on earlier education? Of course, the answer is yes. Moreover, does it reduce pressure on schools to ensure that those basic skills are acquired up to the age of 16?

My two little darling sons, who are aged three and six, will be taken by the state and educated for a long time; as their parent, I am legally obliged to ensure that that happens. If, at the age of 16, they could not read, write or count proficiently, I would feel cheated, and they would have been cheated. If the Government have any duty, it is surely the duty, in terms of education at least, to ensure that people end up with those core skills.

All kinds of factors affect people’s capacity to learn. Many come from altogether less charmed backgrounds than the one that I enjoyed and that I hope my children will enjoy, too. However, it is a mark of failure that, barring extreme circumstances and particular special needs, we still cannot ensure that all who enjoy a state education leave school numerate and literate. Surely we have that responsibility.

The first dilemma is about resources. Some in the primary sector will say—I am sure that the Minister has heard it said, as have you, Mr. Atkinson—“We are worried that the emphasis on the 14-to-19 age group will de-emphasise the significance of younger children.” I do not think that that is the Government’s intention. As public policy makers, we need to have an honest debate about it. I do not know the answer, but we need a serious, open-ended and even-handed discussion about the matter.

The second dilemma is highlighted in the Leitch report. In a slightly partisan fashion, may I say how disappointed I am that the Government have delayed their response to the report? We had expected and eagerly anticipated that the Prime Minister in waiting—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—perhaps the Minister and certainly the Secretary of State for Education and Skills would this week furnish the Committee and the House with their detailed response to the report, which was published last December. We are now told that the response will come later, but we do not know whether that is days, weeks or months away. It certainly is not good enough that we still do not know where the Government stand on the fundamentals of the Leitch review. I hope that the Minister will say something about it today.

That is the partisan bit over and done with; I return to my main theme. Leitch makes it clear that the demand for unskilled labour is plummeting. Although it is contested by some economists, I tend to share Leitch’s view; he argued that the demand for unskilled labour will fall radically. Indeed, he said that it will fall by 2020 to 600,000 jobs. Simultaneously, the number of NEETs, which has been referred to by members on both sides, has grown to 1.3 million—a growth of about 15 per cent. since 1997, as we heard earlier. If we take account of those young people older than 24 or 25, and consider those aged between 30 and 35, there is a substantial number of people not in work. Given the changing macro-economic profile of Great Britain, we have little chance of getting them into work unless we can get them skilled.

The second dilemma then is how much emphasis should be placed on bringing those people back into education and skilling, and how much we should concentrate on upskilling and reskilling the existing work force. Given the demographic profile, unless we do the second, we will not meet out skills targets. That is another big dilemma for the Government, and a big issue for public policy makers.

The third and final dilemma, which is relevant to these helpful amendments and new clauses, is about advice and guidance. I have come to the conclusion, in common with Lord Leitch, that we need to disaggregate the careers service from Connexions. Connexions does an important job for a particular group of young people. It is true that some young people, particularly those who are described as NEETs—not a terribly helpful term, I agree—need a multifunctional service. However, I am not sure that we have not lost something in the careers service by asking those who run it to be Jacks-of-all-trades.

We should probably maintain a service like Connexions, but have an all-age careers service running in parallel. That could be cost-effective. The cost of the old careers service was about half of what Connexions now costs us. As for the throughput of people, there has been nothing like a doubling in the number of clients. Taking into account what the Learning and Skills Council spends in addition on adult careers, we could, within the existing budget, reorganise the careers advice structure so as to deliver much better advice both to young people and to those in the work force seeking to upskill and reskill. That is why it will be Conservative policy to develop an all age career service alongside Connexions. Public policy makers will have to address the dilemma of how much emphasis to place on the multifunctional role—dealing with people with problems—and how much to put on the careers role that is likely to affect the majority of people.

In conclusion, let me say a word about mentoring. We have heard a lot about it, and I want to mention it in relation to apprenticeships. I am sorry to raise the matter again, because I know that every time I do so, the blood pressure of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Corby, of whom I am immensely fond, rockets. I do not want to cause him any unnecessary distress this late in our proceedings. However, I see that he is getting his notes out; he is preparing his weaponry for a counterattack. It is clear that there is not enough mentoring in relation to apprenticeships. Most people think of an apprentice as an eager young learner acquiring a key competence by the side of an experienced craftsman, with a serious emphasis on workplace training. It is not unreasonable to say that every apprenticeship that bears the name should be employer-engaged and mentored, with a serious element of workplace training.

When he talks of mentoring, the Minister will tell us that that happens anyway. He will say that much of my complaint is imagined. However that is not the view of the adult learning inspectorate, which has said that it is possible to complete an apprenticeship without ever having set foot in a workplace. The inspectorate undertook a survey in which it found examples of programme-led apprenticeships that were completed even though they contained no significant period of time spent in employment and little prospect of a job at the end of the programme. The survey came across some engineering apprentices completing a full framework on a six-month programme-led pathway with no period of employment and little or no work experience.

Some apprenticeships, by no means all and not in all sectors, are not mentored; many are insufficiently mentored; some have no employer engagement; and many have an inadequate workplace element. It is critical that the best of the apprenticeship system should become typical. Indeed, it should become the standard for the whole system. When we talk about mentoring, let us talk about that, and let us once again, as public policy makers, have an honest debate about it.

Angela Smith (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

The hon. Gentleman just mentioned the best of the apprenticeship system. Did not his Government dismantle the best of the apprenticeship system in the early 1980s, much to the detriment of many young people of the time, including my younger brother, who never got the opportunity to develop the skills that he should have developed as an apprentice?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The number of advanced apprenticeship enrolments is falling, and I have to tell the hon. Lady that it has been falling since the beginning of the decade. Hon. Members can say what they like about the hon. Member for Daventry—he has taken a bit of stick today even in his absence—but I think that he is a splendid chap. However, we cannot blame him for what has happened in the past 10 years. We need to deal with what has happened recently, what is happening now and what is likely to happen. I make no apology or defence for things that happened in ancient history. I hope that the hon. Lady will make no apology or defence for things that have gone wrong in recent history. We all have a responsibility as politicians to be straightforward about these things.

Phil Hope (Labour, Corby)

I have been trying to bite my tongue, but it has proved completely impossible. The second sentence on the front page of “Towards a Gold Standard for Craft”, the document published today by the hon. Gentleman, says:

“Much training dubbed as an apprenticeship is not worthy of the name.”

That is an absolute disgrace. To respond to his specific point about programme-led pathways, programme-led apprentices begin their apprenticeship in a college and they complete those elements of the framework of an apprenticeship that do not require employer involvement, such as key skills. But—I want to put this clearly on the record and I should like the hon. Gentleman to retract what he has been saying repeatedly in the Chamber and now in Committee—they cannot complete their apprenticeship until they have demonstrated occupational competence. This can be achieved only in the workplace. The scenario he described is simply not possible.

Finally, it should be noted that these programme-led apprenticeships are not widely undertaken. In fact more than 90 per cent. of apprentices are in waged employment from the very start of their programme. I appreciate that Conservatives now, unlike when they were in government, have decided to take a positive interest in apprenticeships. However, it would be helpful if, instead of running down the apprenticeship system and over-exaggerating any flaws there may be, the hon. Gentleman could see his way to celebrating the tripling of apprenticeships in this country and their 60 per cent completion rate—not the 43 per cent. completion rate that his document describes—and for once stand up for apprentices rather than trying to run them down.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Let us be clear about this. I enjoy these exchanges. I know that the Minister’s intentions are good and right. I do not deny that he wants this to work. But we need to be straightforward. The 2007 figures from the Office for National Statistics make it clear that the number of enrolments for advanced apprenticeships—level 3 apprenticeships—and the number of enrolments in level 2 apprenticeships are falling. That is not a cause for celebration or complacency but for considerable concern.

When I cite the Adult Learning Inspectorate it is on the basis of its work in 2006. There may have been a dramatic improvement in the last few months. I bow to the Minister’s greater—I will not say expertise—but certainly his capacity to seek advice. I do not have civil servants sitting behind me, although I have equally good advice from my hon. Friends, who are immensely well informed about these matters. They do not suggest to me that there has been that dramatic change in the last few weeks and months.

The Adult Learning Inspectorate said that it found that colleges were told to rebrand learners as apprentices simply because they were working towards qualifications such as technical certificates that were also part of the apprenticeship framework. However, there was little prospect of these learners progressing to full apprenticeships with a work placement. The rebranding exercise enabled colleges to reach their targets for apprentice enrolments, but of the 34,000 full-time students designated as programme-led apprentices, only about 3,000 progressed to full apprenticeships.

Even allowing for that sleight of hand, the number of enrolments has fallen. Goodness knows what would have happened if there had not been that rebranding. Yet to hear the Under-Secretary one would think that there was not a problem.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Order. I remind the Committee that this is about mentoring, not apprenticeships. Although we have had an enjoyable debate, we should return to the subject matter.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I offered a short analysis of three dilemmas that face public policy makers. I tried to do so in a reasonably even-handed way. The Under-Secretary and I will continue elsewhere to debate the issues that you have told us we must not debate any further here, Mr. Atkinson. However in anticipating his response, I hope that we can have the kind of bipartisan discussions about the way that public policy is prioritised in the terms that this debate has allowed us to explore.

I am grateful for the opportunity to say those few words about my excellent paper, signed copies of which will available by the end of the Committee sitting.

Austin Mitchell (Labour, Great Grimsby)

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that those are a few words, I wonder what he thinks a long speech would be. I am going to deliver a few words slowly. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham and for Sheffield, Hillsborough on the amendments and new clauses, which have been eloquently and articulately presented to us, in respect of further education.

I am sorry that the amendments and new clauses have been met by such quibbling on the other side of the Committee—the Liberals quibble that we should do this, but not that; and that we should do it this way, but not that way—as well as the damned-by-faint-praise arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings. I call him my hon. Friend because he and I are the little fishermen. We went on a fishing expedition to Spanish ports to find fish that were landed below minimum landing sizes to damn the Spanish fishing industry. His Spanish was so bad that, after going directly to the pilchard landings, which was the only thing that people could understand with his Spanish, we never found any small fish. It was a failed attempt to sabotage the common fisheries policy, but it was a bonding experience.

The other side of the Committee is beginning to show signs of life. My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings had reduced his ranks to such a catatonic trance that they were totally silent, until suddenly this issue came up and I saw eyes open, cash registers begin to fly and figures appear—this is going to cost money, “Kill, kill, kill!”

Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Rugby and Kenilworth)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; the Committee always stays awake when he speaks. The question that I asked was not designed to kill the proposals, but it is fair to ask what they will cost.

Austin Mitchell (Labour, Great Grimsby)

That is the perennial question; not whether it is right in principle, or whether it should be done or whether it is going to make for a better society, but what will it cost? That is exactly my point.

The hon. Member for Brent, East has reduced her party by firm discipline into total silence, although there were signs of life when this issue came up. The Whip has asked me to be brief, and I always accede to his requests, so I shall speak for only about a quarter of an hour.

I want to commend the principle behind the amendments and new clause. We had many problems in raising the school leaving age to 16, and we solved them inadequately. We will have more problems keeping people in education or training until they are 18, unless we provide the kind of imaginative framework outlined by my two hon. Friends today.

We always cater so well for academics, the middle class and the intelligent in this country, but they tend to get on, whatever happens, through their own ability. However, we do not cater for, support and sustain those who are less adequate intellectually. I understand the desire to get out of school and into adult life and to be free of school trammels, but such people are, in effect, throwing away their futures in many cases, unless they are helped adequately and are sustained for what is a difficult period. I am sure that parents help, but such people need some other support mechanism.

The SEN students from Sheffield, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough has referred, will find it difficult. I constantly have to argue about the ending of courses at the institute in Grimsby because they do not lead to a diploma and therefore do not qualify for finance that would provide a specialist for each student. We must have an imaginative framework to help these people, because a skill, an education or an involvement is a platform on which to build life. Those people who are deprived of those things live a second-rate existence and it is our job, in providing training and higher and further education to see that people are sustained through the system and helped to seize opportunities, rather than being cast into the dustbin of life, as I would put it; that is, being cast out unsupported and unhelped. It is a little impractical to include such ideas in this Bill, but I hope that those are the lines that the Government are thinking along as we go in for this all-important transition.

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

We have genuinely had an exceedingly good debate, and I would particularly like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham on introducing the new clauses. When we first saw the new clauses in the Department, one of my officials, totally unprompted, said, “This person clearly knows what they are talking about.” Through their contributions today, both she and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough have adequately and emphatically demonstrated that.

The Government are sympathetic to the intention behind these new clauses. Indeed, key elements of the proposals are already being developed as part of Government policies through, for example, the “Every Child Matters” and “Youth Matters” strategies. We are also considering them as part of our own proposals on raising the participation age. Given the circumstances and the changes that we are considering, however, now is not the right time to create additional legislation for young people aged 16 to 18.

Having said that, let me address each of the proposals in turn. New clause 3 seeks to place the Secretary of State under a statutory duty to arrange for an assessment resulting in a personal profile for all students in their last year of compulsory schooling. Progress files—a similar concept—were recommended by the Dearing report in 1996, and indeed they are now modelled as part of best practice across the system. Most schools already have such measures in place in ways that reflect the individual circumstances of both the young people concerned and the school. I think that that is better than the one-size-fits-all approach to legislation.

On school leavers, head teachers are already required under the pupil information regulations to prepare a report briefly setting out details of progress and achievements during the final year in curriculum subjects and activities. Again, I think that that answer responds to the concerns that have been expressed.

New clause 4 goes to the heart of the debate. It stresses the importance of giving information, advice and guidance, but I do not believe that further changes in legislation are necessary at this stage. At the moment, any young person in the 13-to-19 age range can already access an individual professional for advice and guidance through the Connexions service. That is not a static situation, and it is evolving. The Connexions service holds detailed assessment information about the needs of young people, and Connexions personal advisers are trained professionals who are responsible for providing information, advice and guidance to the young people concerned.

Connexions and schools agree arrangements for making services available to young people; in many cases, that involves Connexions having a direct presence in the school. However, I would be the first to admit that we need to do more. That is why this summer we are planning to publish a set of standards for young people’s information, advice and guidance.

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

As I was saying, I would be the first to acknowledge that we need to do more. We are planning to publish this summer a set of standards—covering information, advice and guidance—to ensure that all young people benefit from high quality advice and guidance wherever they are, and that the standard of the services with which they are provided is consistently high across the country, although they will be differentiated to meet the needs of individuals. We are keen to spread best practice.

Funding and responsibility for Connexions is migrating from the Connexions partnerships to local authorities, a process that we expect to be complete by next April. That, combined with the introduction of quality standards for information, advice and guidance, will further strengthen the services that young people receive.

That was the most important part of the debate. Let me now respond to some of the specifics, particularly mentoring. One example of effective practice that we want to encourage is that of transition mentors. In that model, an adult who has been supporting a young person in school stays with him across the transition, continuing to work with him at the start of post-16 learning. A number of areas are already using that approach. The mentor can be based in a school, college, Connexions service, local business or community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough raised some important issues in terms of transition at the end of key stage 4. One of the most significant things that we have to consider—as she knows, we are doing so—is raising the compulsory education and training age. For far too long, we have allowed 16-year-olds to lose all contact with the world of education and training. That is crazy. We have to ensure that we make the right offering available. That is why the expansion of apprenticeships and the roll-out of diplomas is crucial. When one considers that education and training until the age of 18 was first proposed in this country in 1918, and that it appeared in Butler’s Education Act in 1944, the fact that that is still not the situation today is lamentable. That is why we are pressing for it so strongly.

Other hon. Members have talked about information, advice and guidance. We need to ensure in that regard that we lay a responsibility on the further education provider to consult not only existing learners but potential ones—those who are not yet in the system—to ensure that college provision, courses and the way in which the system operates genuinely cater for their needs. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings made the point that functional illiteracy and innumeracy do not amount to people not being able to read, write and add up. That is important; sometimes such terms are misunderstood. He also, rightly, called for further improvements in the school system. I, too, want improvements to continue. However, we need to acknowledge the progress that has taken place. I have observed it particularly in my constituency, where 10 years ago 28 per cent. of young people gained five A to C grades at the age of 16. Today, the figure is 58 per cent. That represents thousands upon thousands of young people whose life chances have improved.

The hon. Gentleman also asked specifically about the Government’s response to Leitch. I assure him that that response will come very soon. However, we were right to separate the response to Leitch from the important announcement that I have been involved with elsewhere in London during the gap between Committee sittings—along with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, the Chancellor, the Secretary of State and Digby Jones. That was the launch of the skills pledge, the incredibly important process by which employers up and down the country sign up to commit to educate and train their employees to level 2. That will be hugely important in changing the culture of education and training in this country, and I hope that it will be welcomed across the House.

There has also been a lot of reference to NEETs. It is important to make it clear that the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training has remained fairly constant at about 10 per cent. for the past 10 years. We have made progress: more than three quarters of 16-year-olds are in full-time education or training. That is the highest proportion ever. However, the situation is not static—those in the NEETs category include people on gap years, mothers looking after children and young people between jobs and courses. We cannot simply say that there is a permanent 10 per cent. who are excluded from the system. Nevertheless, there are causes for concern, and we are setting ourselves tough and challenging targets to reduce the figure further.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

To save my putting down a series of incisive written questions, which will cause the Minister no end of difficulties and his civil servants still more, will he write to the Committee—or to me directly if he prefers—giving the breakdown of the number of NEETs? I think that he is right; it is a big total, and it includes gap-year students and all kinds of other people, some of whom have perennial difficulties, such as mental health problems or addictions. A good breakdown of that figure would enable an intelligent debate. I hope that he takes up the gauntlet that I have laid and drops me a line about that.

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

I will be more than happy to respond in that vein. This is one of the most complex social and educational policy challenges that we face. Too often, the tabloid headlines do not do it justice.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the Connexions service and the position of the Conservative party on that issue, which, he will forgive me for saying, has not always been crystal clear. I remember the debate on widening participation in education that took place on the Floor of the House a couple of months ago. His hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), when challenged on the Conservative party’s policy on Connexions, said that it was to abolish the service, at which point the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) started pulling at his jacket. Literally five minutes later, the Hon. Member for Henley was forced to stand up again and say that he should have said that he would reform the Connexions service.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Just to reassure the Minister, I conveyed our policy on the careers service, having cleared it through the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant. That is the Tory party’s policy-making process; it is not made on the hoof by anybody.

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

The implied rebuke for the hon. Member for Henley was clearly heard all the way across the Chamber.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills eloquently put the case in response to the points on apprenticeships that were raised. People can play with figures, but the reality is that today, we have 250,000 young people in apprenticeships, compared with 70,000 10 years ago. Completion rates have gone from 28 per cent. to 60 per cent., just behind the performance of Germany, which has always been seen as an exemplar in that regard. I am the first to admit that we can and should do more, but given what happened to apprenticeships in the 1980s and 1990s, we should not take lectures from the Conservative party. In response to documents written by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, I say that putting skills training in his hands would be like asking King Herod to manage the Sure Start programme.

New clause 5 deals with the transition from school to post-16 provision and adult life of young people with special educational needs and disabilities. It is an important issue for the Government. The 2005 report of the Prime Minister’s strategy unit highlighted the difficulties that young people face in their transition to adult life. It is crucial that we do more. I am sympathetic to the sentiments behind the new clause, but arrangements to provide those young people and their parents and guardians with advice and information to help with the transition are already in place, along with the statutory transition planning arrangements, under the Education Act 1996, for young people with statements of special educational needs. Crucial in that regard is the annual review meeting, following which a transition plan is drawn up. A special educational needs code of practice gives the Connexions service responsibility for overseeing its implementation and liaising with the young person, their parents or carers and post-16 providers. To my hon. Friends, I say that we need to keep transition planning for those with special educational needs under review. I have been discussing the issues with campaigners recently and I hope that we can continue to move forward on them.

New clause 6 seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to

“provide or secure the provision of services to encourage, enable or assist...the creation of programmes”

to develop young people’s skills and qualifications,

“in particular...for the development of leadership skills and skills for future employment.”

I agree that it is important to help young people to develop those skills, which are key to supporting the transition to adulthood and to success in the modern workplace. The new clause is not needed, however, because there are already sufficiently broad statutory powers for the Secretary of State to arrange that kind of provision. Sections 2 and 3 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, for example, give the LSC statutory functions in relation to securing the provision of facilities for post-16 education and training.

The third sector, to which a number of hon. Members referred, also has a crucial role to play. Schemes such as the Duke of Edinburgh award, the scouts and guides and the Prince’s Trust do invaluable work in that regard. The third sector is also a key partner with local authorities in delivering youth opportunity and capital funds.

A wide range of opportunities to develop skills for leadership and work is already available to young people aged 14 to 19, such as functional skills in English, maths, information and communication technology, and personal, learning and thinking skills. This has been an important debate. We have had a good exchange of views. Many of the changes that have been called for are already in train through particular strategies that we are pursuing or ones that are under consideration. I hope that my hon. Friend will therefore feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Roberta Blackman-Woods (Labour, City of Durham)

When I tabled these amendments and new clauses, interesting though they are, I did not expect them to spawn such a wide-ranging debate. I was pleased by the comments of my hon. Friends the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough and for Great Grimsby, emphasising the importance of transition-stage support. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent, East for her concise and focused comments about the need to have clarity about which type of advice and support we are talking about.

I want to thank the Minister for his helpful comments. I note that the Government have done a lot to support young people in further education and training and to expand opportunities in post-16 education. I am pleased to hear that guidance is in the pipeline which might help to put a greater focus on some of these issues. When his Department looks at extending the compulsory school leaving age I urge him to ensure that these issues are high up the agenda and that some opportunity is given to extending the range of support that is available. I hope that he will keep a review of the Connexions service in mind and consider whether it is the correct body to provide all of this support. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 30

Clause 32

Bill Rammell (Labour, Harlow)

On a point of order, Mr. Atkinson. May I propose a vote of thanks first to you, for chairing the Committee in exemplary fashion? I am a keen sports fan and the best referees and umpires are those who are not ever present and conspicuous. With your quiet authority you have demonstrated exactly how a Committee should be handled. I am sure that all Members are grateful for that.

May I also thank thehon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings? Despite our disagreements on bureaucracy, which I think will run and run, he has throughout these proceedings been considerate, reasonable and constructive. I was interested that he described himself as a mild, considerate, romantic high Tory. Three of those I can agree with, the fourth one puzzles me slightly. Perhaps on Report he can explain it in more detail.

I thank the hon. Member for Brent, East for her constructive engagement, her clear commitment throughout the proceedings, and her prediction that we would be done in two days. She has been proved absolutely right. One of my right hon. Friends, who is genuinely a good friend, sometimes describes the Whips Office as the Stasi. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole with his quiet diplomacy and force could not be further from the reality of the Stasi. I hope that he takes that as a compliment.

I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire for his expert handling of the Welsh elements of the Bill. I would also particularly like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, who is a genuine friend. I know that all members of the Committee are pleased to see him back in fitness and health. He was working throughout his difficult times, and hon. Members can be reassured that he never lost his sense of humour. That was proved when, on seeing myself and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is as follically challenged as I am, he looked us both in the eye and said, “At least after chemo, my hair will grow back”. He has been proved absolutely right.

I also offer thanks to my hon. Friends, the Back Benchers on the Committee. The most difficult challenge for Back Benchers supporting the Government when a Bill is going through Parliament is to support it constructively while also making a contribution to the Committee. I know that they have all been able to do that, and have done so in an exemplary fashion.

Finally, I offer thanks to all the officials within the DFES and within the devolved administrations, who have worked their socks off to get us to where we are today. I know that I speak on behalf of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Corby, when I thank them sincerely.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I would just like to say a few words to endorse much of what the Minister has said. His own conduct, both before and during the Bill, has been of the highest order and an example that I hope to follow when I take his job in a short while.

I would like to endorse the thanks given to you, Mr. Atkinson. You have chaired our sittings with your usual competence and style. I also thank all the officials who have made our meetings run as smoothly as they have done.

I thank the hon. Member for Brent, East, with whom I have agreed to an alarming degree. She must be terribly pleased that I have allowed her to indulge her social diary, which I know is a whirlwind of exciting events.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster, who has kept me in order, for Daventry, who is not here today, but is always a benevolent presence when we debate issues relating to higher and further education, for Rugby and Kenilworth, who is not entirely focused on financial matters, although occasionally he is rightly focused on them, and for Reading, East, who takes a profound interest and makes a valuable contribution in these areas.

I also want to thank the other Ministers, particularly the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Corby, whose courage in recent weeks and months has been an example to us all. When he looks in the mirror, he does not think first of his recent illness; he thinks of that second. First, he thinks of his new-found virility, on the grounds that men without much hair are at least reputed to be particularly manly.

I thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to our debate. It has been a good, healthy, wholesome and productive debate. I am grateful to have been part of it.

Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat, Brent East)

May I add my thanks, Mr. Atkinson, to you for chairing this Committee so well and for getting us to the point of finishing before 4 pm? I hasten to add that I do not have a social appointment; I am meeting representatives of Barnardo’s, who will be waiting for me in Portcullis House.

May I thank the Minister for being constructive and willing to amend the Bill as we have gone through it? It is good to have a Bill that is in a much better form now than it was when it first came before our colleagues in the other place.

I suggested to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Corby that he was obviously feeling better, because the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was clearly irritating him again, and he was willing to fight with him. I thank the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings for a constructive contribution and for often providing opportunities for joint working which were helpful. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West, who has had to leave just now, but who has been helpful during the debates that we have had on the Bill.

Finally, I would like to add my thanks to the Clerk, who is always extremely helpful on the detail of amendments, and to the civil servants. I was able to pass on to them the detail of what we wanted to do prior to the sittings of the Committee, which was helpful.