Education and Skills Bill

Public Bill Committee, 7 February 2008.

Further written evidence to be reported to the House

Clause 5

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

What a pleasure it is to be here this morning at this fine hour, with you in the Chair, Mr. Bayley.

To remind the Committee, the amendment is intended to draw out the Government’s reasoning for setting the level for full-time occupation at 20 hours a week. I hope that the Committee would agree that the level should be set such that, taken together with one day a week in training, it would occupy the young person for a significant period. Crucially, it should also be set above the level that would reasonably be seen to constitute part-time employment, which young people should legitimately be able to do in conjunction with full-time education or training, without additional duties falling on either them or their employers. I know that the duties that fall on employers are a particular concern of the Committee’s, and we have discussed them at some length in previous sittings and with the witnesses.

We are confident that 20 hours a week is the right threshold to set for allowing part-time participation. It is a level that, at the moment, would capture most young people who work as their main activity, without catching most of those who work part time. Well over 90 per cent. of those young people who say that they work full time as their main activity work for more than 20 hours a week. Some 93 per cent. of those who say that they work part time while studying full time work for 20 hours a week or fewer. In contrast, if we drew the line at 16 hours a week, we would catch about 15 per cent. of those who study full time and work part time. We believe that that indicates that we have found the correct balance, with the proposed level being consistent with most young people’s experience. With one day a week in training, work plus training would occupy at least four days of a young person’s week, meeting our test of a significant period of time. A lower threshold would increase the potential burden on employers.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

As the Minister was speaking, it occurred to me how young people on incapacity benefit might be affected. The maximum they are allowed to work in a week without affecting their benefit is 16 hours. Perhaps some provision should be made for that.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am aware that there is some logic to proposing a threshold of 16 hours’ work a week, for consistency with benefits arrangements. That is why we tested it to see whether there would be a significant extra potential burden on young people and employers for those people who legitimately study part time while in employment full time. As I do not have a detailed answer to whether we need to make an adjustment with regard to incapacity benefit, I will reflect on the question.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

While the Minister is in a reflective mode, further to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, it might be useful if the Committee had a feel for the number of young people with that benefits interface. Presumably, that was taken into account in the modelling. He has given us the numbers who will be affected if the level is changed to 16 hours, which is helpful, but we are not certain what proportion would have the interface with benefits, with the considerations that spring from that, that my hon. Friend highlighted.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I shall think about that matter further. If it was later in the day and I was not full of cold, I might be able instantly to work out the logic in relation to the benefits system, but sadly it eludes me at the moment.

The principle is clear that we need to set the level so that it is not too burdensome for either young people or employers. As we have set it, we do not believe that there will be a significant impact on the youth labour market. If it were set lower, we would be less confident that that would be the case. I know that this is a subject of some concern to the Committee.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I want to clarify one point regarding the burden. If I understand the Minister’s argument correctly, he is saying that if we set the number of hours that constituted full-time work at 16 hours a week, 15 per cent. of young people who work part time would still be considered to be working part time, but 85 per cent. would be considered to be working full time. The consequence of being regarded as working full time is that it would be less burdensome for the individual because he would be required to engage in education or training for only one day a week, whereas if he were regarded as working part time, he would be under a requirement to engage in full-time education.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

That may be so, but many more employers would have to go through what I do not regard as being exceptionally onerous duties in checking the arrangements for their employees to fulfil their duties. Those burdens would be put on them, and I know that the hon. Gentleman is exercised about that. [ Interruption. ] Unless significant information comes to me—no, it has not—in the light of my reasoning, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am reassured by the Minister’s argument. I would be interested if he were in due course to respond to the questions of my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster and for South Holland and The Deepings about the interface between the duties in the Bill and the incapacity benefit system.

The Minister has made some very persuasive arguments about the fact that, if the amendment were accepted, 85 per cent. of young people engaged in part-time work would find themselves categorised as working full time, which would have consequences for the employer and for the availability of part-time work for young people. That is a valuable and necessary income source for many young people who are engaged in full-time education.

I mentioned in another debate that I sat in on a Teach First interview session at Canary Wharf. One of the young graduates who were being interviewed mentioned in passing—not as a selling point—that she was holding down four part-time jobs while studying for her postgraduate certificate in education. That makes one realise the efforts that some young people go to in order to gain qualifications. In the light of the Minister’s very persuasive arguments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I beg to move amendment No. 132, in clause 5, page 3, line 19, leave out from ‘week’ to ‘and’ in line 20.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 133.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

These are technical amendments that make clearer the interpretation of “normal weekly working hours” in the clause, removing potential legal ambiguity.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I ask the Minister to confirm that the clause will allow volunteering and that under clause 5(2)(b), which refers to working

“otherwise than for reward”,

will ensure that those engaged in full-time volunteering will be regarded as fully employed for purposes of the Bill. V, the charity that was set up in 2006 following the Russell commission report into volunteering, has raised the issue. V believes that the provision enables volunteering to take place, but will the Minister confirm that for the avoidance of doubt? The charity states:

“It goes without saying that volunteering must be a freely chosen activity and the system must therefore be flexible so that young people can move between options as appropriate (for example, leave a volunteering placement and enter into full-time employment without penalty).”

Will he also confirm that young people who are engaged in volunteering will have to fulfil the training obligations under the Bill at the same time? Is it correct, as was said in a previous debate that, as a volunteer overseas would be a non-resident, he or she would not be covered by the duties in the Bill?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am happy to confirm that the hon. Gentleman’s understanding of our intention is entirely correct, as is his understanding of the provision’s effect. We will, by regulation, define that it is entirely appropriate for young people affected by the duties under the Bill to be engaged in full-time volunteering as long as they are also engaged in relevant training or education. It is undoubtedly the case, by virtue of clause 1 whereby

“This Part applies to any person who is resident in England”,

that someone who is not resident in England is not affected by the Bill. On that basis, I hope that members of the Committee will accept the clause.

Clause 6

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I beg to move amendment No. 162, in clause 6, page 3, line 45, leave out from ‘Part’ to end of line 46 and insert

‘training or education in relation to any person to whom this Part applies shall be regarded as “relevant” if and only if, it is either—

(a) training or education towards an accredited qualification provided by a course or courses, or

(b) training or education which, if the person concerned were participating in full time education or training, would be considered appropriate having regard to the person’s age, ability and aptitude and any learning difficulties which the person may have.’.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 12, in clause 6, page 3, line 46, at end insert—

‘(1A) In-house training provided by employers is regarded as “relevant training or education” for the purposes of this Part’.

No. 13, in clause 6, page 3, line 46, at end insert—

‘( ) The Secretary of State may specify by order other non-formal education or training that will be regarded as “relevant training or education” for the purposes of this Part.’.

No. 32, in clause 21, page 11, line 16, at end insert—

‘(1A) In subsection (1) “appropriate arrangements” may include training provided directly by the employer which can lead to an accredited qualification.’.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Good morning, Mr. Bayley, and welcome back to the Chair. We have already made rapid progress today, but I hope that the Minister, who looks in particularly perky form, does not expect us to get through all the clauses and amendments with the speed that he dealt with Government amendments Nos. 132 and 133.

The clauses that we are about to debate are not ones that we support passionately. Indeed, we have tabled amendments to delete clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 from the Bill. We gave our reasons for that when we discussed clause 5, and I am sure that the Minister will be relieved to hear me say that I do not need to repeat the arguments now. Some of our forthcoming debates will be about dealing with the problems in the Government’s approach, accepting that we have already discussed whether the overall approach is the right one to take.

Clause 6 defines relevant training or education for people who, under the Bill, will be obliged to engage in training or education while in employment. It specifies that that must consist of “a course or courses” leading to a qualification accredited by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Amendment No. 162 and, to some extent, amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 32, tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and his colleagues, deal with two concerns about the clause. The first is about the definition and meaning of “relevant” in respect of the qualifications and the extent to which that will restrict the qualifications that young people can obtain. The second concerns the nature of the qualifications to which people will be restricted—whether they must be QCA-approved qualifications—and whether that restriction is sensible and gives the desirable flexibility. We have received representations from outside bodies that are worried about whether it is sensible for the clause to be so restrictive.

Amendment No. 162 was suggested to us by the National Union of Teachers to address its concerns about relevance, which was the first issue that I raised today. In a briefing note that it prepared for the Committee, which other hon. Members may have seen, it states:

“It seems that those in full-time education are able to undertake appropriate learning opportunities which do not necessarily lead to a qualification. Those in full-time occupation, however, must undergo training or education that is ‘relevant’ i.e. leads to a relevant qualification or a course of study that is of use to the employer and not necessarily of interest to the young person.”

I had not originally registered that point. I had assumed that there would be a large degree of flexibility in how those obligations were applied. It will be interesting to know whether the intention of the Bill is to be restricted in the way that the NUT is concerned about, or whether, in fact, it will allow for greater latitude. The NUT in its briefing note cites the example of a young person who might be working as a car mechanic and asks whether they would be able to take a course in something like accountancy, which might be seen to have no relevance to being a car mechanic but might be very useful for their future educational needs.

We just want some clarity from the Minister about whether the word “relevant” implies that the education and training taken up by young people should relate to the employment, or whether it could be unrelated to the employment but of use to the young person later in life. That is incredibly important. If we are placing this duty on employers to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds are in education and training, their attitude to those young people might be different if the education and training is directly relevant to the employment or if it is not. We want to be absolutely clear about that.

The second issue, which the NUT and other bodies such as the Association of Colleges raise, is whether it is sensible to restrict the qualifications to those that are recognised by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. That is touched on, in part, by amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 32, which seek to impart greater flexibility to the Bill and which we therefore also support. On that point, the NUT states that there is a concern that the Bill

“will mean that ‘relevant’ training and education has to always result in a nationally recognised qualification. If this means that locally developed courses are therefore ineligible under the legislation the opportunities for young people and the benefits to local employers may be limited.”

The Association of Colleges says something similar in its briefing to the Committee, which was issued in January. It stated:

“We have some concerns over the position of young people with learning difficulties which prevent them from taking an external qualification.”

Accepting that we do not want those obligations to be placed on young people in the first place—because we think that being in full-time employment is important enough in itself and, in part, useful to education and skills—we want to hear from the Minister about the degree of flexibility in relation to the relevance of qualifications. Is he prepared to extend the same flexibility that appears to exist for young people who are purely in education and training in educational settings to those people who are in work-based settings in relation to whether or not the qualifications that they achieve must be QCA approved?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It is good to be back under your chairmanship, Mr. Bayley, and engaged in our important work. I have some good news and some bad news this morning. The bad news is that, in relation to this Bill at least, I have come to disagree with Cardinal Newman, who wrote:

“Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt”.

The difficulties that we are beginning to explore in relation to the Bill are causing doubt. The good news is that my hearing problem has improved. Like the young man in Matthew 17, my affliction has been lifted.

The points made in relation to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Yeovil require amplification. The difference between appropriate learning and relevant learning is an issue, because “relevance” is a loaded word. The hon. Gentleman understated his case, with typical humility. The use of the word “relevant” means that the study must lead to accredited qualifications. The Government have a prejudice against non-accredited learning, as demonstrated by the savage cuts in adult and community learning over the past few years. Although I do not want to contradict the general mood of the Committee that one of the tests of vocational learning is employability, the first route back to employability may not be through the pursuit of an accredited course.

The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that it would be more appropriate to use the word “appropriate”. Appropriate learning would be better than relevant learning in that regard. I shall come on to deal with the amendments that stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends, but it is worth mentioning that the hon. Gentleman makes a good case about the word “relevant”. It is a much more significant word in this context than it might first appear.

The hon. Gentleman’s second point, which was also persuasive, was that there must be no disparity between young people in the workplace who are engaged in training and young people in further education colleges or other places of learning. There is a question mark over that. I say no more than that. It is clearly the business of members of the Committee to probe the Minister on such matters. I therefore seek his reassurance in that regard.

The Bill does not take sufficient account of the huge amount of training that already takes place in the workplace. That brings us back to the issue of relevance. The explanatory notes, which reinforce the hon. Gentleman’s point, say that such training

“must consist of a course or courses leading towards a qualification accredited by the QCA.”

The Committee will know that young people are already engaged in a large amount of training provided by employers.

On the subject of training, the British Chambers of Commerce in its briefing on the Bill says:

“SMEs in particular conduct a huge amount of this and its place in helping young people attain a Level 2 qualification should be recognised within the policy of raising the compulsory participation age.”

That brings us back to the fundamental difference between us and the Government. The determination to increase participation is a common cause. We can agree about that, but the route to that end is the subject of our discussions in Committee and points to the difference in emphasis between the two sides of the Committee. My hon. Friends and I would not wish to discourage any of the existing valuable work that is being done with young people by making provisions that were insufficiently flexible to embrace that work. That is purpose of our amendment.

The YWCA has also argued:

“Compulsory participation in formal education does not necessarily lead to learning. Non-formal education and youth work awards, accredited by QCA or appropriate bodies, should be recognized as valid forms of training for those most disengaged and disadvantaged.”

That points to a matter that has been raised in the Committee repeatedly: it might be difficult to reach the young people whom we most want to re-engage—namely, those least likely to take up training or educational places post-16—unless we retain sufficient flexibility at the points of access to learning. That argument has been made convincingly by a number of hon. Members in their considerations thus far, and it is directly relevant to the amendments that I am speaking to.

Surely, there is a strong case that in-house training should fall under the relevant training or education category as worded in the Bill, or that those words should be changed. Either we change the word “relevant” to something that is implicitly more flexible, or we include the kind of training that I have described under the banner of relevance. In other words, we would amend the Bill to create a capacity for more flexibility. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are therefore designed to assist the Government by improving the Bill to take account of in-house training.

I make one final point. We have spoken at length on our personal experiences of employing people. My experience is that precisely that kind of in-house training is the first opportunity that young people of 16, who have left school perhaps without the strongest academic record, have to be both involved in and committed to, and I am concerned that the Bill’s inflexibility will make that altogether more difficult.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

We see full-time employment alongside educational training as an important route for young people to be able to follow. The training could be provided by either the employer or an external learning provider and could be an entry-level course, a vocational course in a specific sector, GCSEs or one of the new diplomas, for example. It could involve the young person being released for one day a week to participate, or it could be fitted around their normal working hours, as we have discussed. We have purposefully made that duty as flexible as possible so that personalised arrangements can be agreed that are suitable to both the young person and the employer.

We have had the discussion about relevance. Clause 6(1) states that

“‘relevant training of education’ means training or educational towards an accredited qualification provided by a course or courses.”

Therefore, we are clearly not defining relevant as being tied to the particular occupation that the young person is engaged in through their employment. The hon. Member for Yeovil referred to a scenario in which a car mechanic might be able to do an accountancy course. The young car mechanic could certainly do an accountancy course that might not be seen to be directly relevant to their employment, as long as it is accredited. It does not have to be relevant to the employment. A good employer might want to discuss with the young person what they are doing, but it is the young person’s choice. They might also want to do a foreign language or train for a different career, and there is a whole set of accredited qualifications that would allow them to fulfil their obligations in law.

Obviously, on one point we are clear. We have tried to frame the clause as flexibly as possible, but we are clear that the work must be towards an accredited qualification. There are currently more than 6,000 qualifications at entry level and levels 1, 2 and 3 that are accredited by the QCA for young people. We will consult shortly on a qualifications strategy that will set out over the next few years, as we move towards the implementation of the legislation, how we can rationalise that range of qualifications into something more comprehensible by the outside world. The fundamental part of that strategy will be to ensure that the qualifications available to young people are valuable to them and their employers, and we will address some of the concerns raised by, for example, Professor Alison Wolf, about the value of some vocational qualifications.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

May I take the Minister back to the entitlement of a young person to study for a course that is unrelated to the employment in which they are involved? Does that mean—I am thinking particularly of small employers—that there would be an obligation on employers to subsidise the training of an employee in an area that may be of no benefit to the company?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

No, there is certainly no obligation on employers to fund training. Clearly, employers that provide training would fund it. However, with regard to asking the person commencing employment how they plan to fulfil the duty and allowing them reasonable time to do that, we have set out the requirements in the relevant chapter on the duties of employers. As I have said, most types of employment in which young people are engaged—retail, for example—would allow a young person to work the maximum of 40 hours that they are allowed in law and still be able to access training. The provision would operate with a huge amount of flexibility. Employers would not end up taking on extra costs by having a young person that they employ undertake training in something that is not directly related to their work.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

There are two points to make here. One is the point raised by my hon. Friend about parallel education and training, which does not have to be directly linked in the way that she described. The second point is about what I have called in the amendment non-formal training or education. We emphasise that that will be specified by order. We do not suggest that “any old training” will do; of course there should be proper constraints. However, surely getting a disengaged young person involved in meaningful training, is a more significant and important first step than adhering to a rather narrow view about accredited qualifications.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I shall talk a little about informal training, but it is important to stress the importance of accreditation to ensure that it is not “any old training”, to use the hon. Gentleman’s phrase. I draw his attention to, for example, the ASDAN awards mentioned by the Prince’s Trust. Those are accredited but are an effective way of engaging someone in employment. Equally, we are introducing the foundation learning tier to ensure that within the qualifications framework we have a range of qualifications to deal with those special educational needs mentioned by the hon. Member for Yeovil.

We are developing more forms of accreditation of employer training because we recognise the importance of in-house training. Now, employers can have their training accredited as part of a national system, but to do so they must work in partnership with an awarding body. We are concerned that that is unnecessarily restrictive, particularly on the full range of employers. That is why the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is conducting a number of pilots with employers to establish how, from a number of options, they might have their training accredited in future in the qualifications and credit framework. The options include passing the same scrutiny of standards as other awarding bodies, becoming recognised as awarding bodies themselves—we have had examples of that in the past couple of weeks—or being recognised as a body that can submit units, but not award full vocational qualifications. Thus, an aspect of in-house training could become an accredited unit and lead to a qualification that is awarded elsewhere, or employers could work with other employers who have become recognised as awarding bodies, perhaps in their supply chain. I mentioned a notional scenario when I gave evidence to the Committee and during a discussion of the matter on, I think, 31 January.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

In relation to amendment No. 162, what is the Government’s objection to allowing young people to be in

“training or education which, if the person concerned were participating in full time education or training, would be considered appropriate”.

Taking into account those others factors, what is it about being in employment that means there should not be the same degree of flexibility?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I was just about to deal with that point. I will do so in summary. There is an important role for informal training in re-engaging a young person, but once they are sufficiently engaged and are in full-time employment, they have moved on from disengagement, when informal training had a powerful role to play. It is therefore important to ensure that training contributes towards an accredited qualification.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Will the Minister allow me to intervene on that specific point?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I would like to address the detail of that point and, if my response is still inadequate, the hon. Gentleman may wish to intervene later.

The hon. Gentleman referred to non-formal and in-house training. It has been suggested that informal and unaccredited training provided by an employer for their employees should count. We strongly believe that it should not count for the purposes of part-time education or training alongside employment. That does not mean that non-formal education does not have an important role, as we have made clear in response to previous amendments. It does have an important role, and that is provided for in the reference to full-time education and training in clause 4.

Some young people may not be ready for full-time employment; they may be engaged in an entry to employment programme or one of the “get into” programmes described by Martina Milburn in an evidence session. It is right that the legislation is sufficiently flexible to encompass those and other re-engagement programmes. Clause 4 covers those arrangements and amendment No. 13 is therefore unnecessary. Young people who are in full-time employment have already been engaged and gained sufficient skills for an employer to want to offer them a job. It is right to treat those young people differently, and that is why we do not accept amendment No. 162, which adds the clause 4 definition of full-time education and training to the definition in clause 6 of part-time education and training alongside employment.

We recognise the value of in-house training. If such training leads to an accredited qualification, it will count towards young people fulfilling their duty to participate. Crucially, it will count towards their being able to take that training onto their next job. We all know that the reality of the notion of a job for life is extremely rare, particularly if someone has started a job at 16. Employers who provide their own accredited training will be under no further duties with regard to a young person’s participation—there is no duty to check or to release a young person for training elsewhere. There are some incentives for employers in that regard.

I was heartened by the comment of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton on the new employer-led qualifications that were announced last week. I think that I repeated his memorable quote to the Committee last time. He clearly recognises the value of employers offering their own accredited qualifications, and I hope he will also recognise that the proposed amendment to clause 21 is therefore unnecessary.

I have already set out in debate on earlier clauses, particularly clause 2, why we consider accredited training to be important for those in employment. Young people will of course be learning continually as they do their day-to-day job, but by also giving them the opportunity to participate in good-quality accredited training, we can ensure that they get recognition for their achievements and are able to demonstrate what they have learnt to others. Amendment No. 12 would have the effect of removing the requirement for accreditation, which would reduce the benefits of the legislation for those young people who choose to participate through part-time training alongside employment.

I hope that that more detailed response has been sufficient to persuade hon. Members not to press their amendments—

Mr. Hayes rose—

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Clearly I have not quite managed it, so I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I managed to restrain myself for a considerable time as the Minister fleshed out his argument, however, there is another aspect that is relevant to our discussion. My experience in business suggests that much training that is accredited by reputable bodies would not necessarily fall within the compass of the Bill as drafted. Would that training be disregarded? In-house training is often accredited by other bodies. In the IT industry, for example, companies such as Microsoft, Novell and Oracle put in place training that they accredit and it is highly valued. A young person might get involved in that, but it might not fall within the orbit of the Bill.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As I set out when describing the pilots that the QCA is engaged in with employers, we have some work to do over the intervening period between now and when the duties come into effect to maximise the potential for employer-based, in-house training to be accredited. I have been on one or two of those Microsoft courses, to learn the ins and outs of Microsoft Access, which was obviously a deeply fulfilling and fascinating experience. I can see the value of those courses in a small business context, which is the context in which I undertook that training. We will be working with those sorts of organisations and the QCA to ensure that we maximise the number of courses in the qualifications and credit framework, which will be used when judging whether they are relevant training or education.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Has the Minister considered occupations such as working on a market stall? I am thinking, for example, of a young boy who has been a chronic non-attender and has not succeeded in a classroom setting but who, if taken on in a job working for a market trader, would learn skills such as being reliable, getting up early in the morning, carrying out instructions and interfacing with the general public. Does he envisage those sorts of skills leading to accreditation?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Being taken on at a market stall can be highly appropriate and engaging for young people and can be of significant value. They will acquire skills in their work, such as numeracy skills. The sort of individual that the hon. Lady describes may have been disengaged and may not have the level 1, level 2 or level 3 qualifications that reflect the numeracy skills that they acquire through working as a trader. It would seem highly appropriate that alongside all the fun of getting up early in the morning, setting up their stall and selling their wares in an engaging way, those people also find time to ensure that the skills that they have acquired, such as numeracy skills, have accreditation. That way, if they tire of getting up so early in the morning and assembling their stall, even though they might be acquiring huge wealth in the process, and they want to move on to something else, they will have something that is portable to future employers.

Given the reasoning that I have set out, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

We are grateful to the Minister for his response, but are only moderately reassured. We made a little progress in clarifying the intent behind the word “relevant”. The Minister has put it on the record that there is no intention to restrict the courses that a youngster can take while in employment. There is therefore no reason, to take the hon. Lady’s example, that somebody working on a market stall should not also take a course in car mechanics, nuclear physics or anything else. It is useful to have that on the record.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman overestimates the degree to which the Minister conceded to the argument. With respect, what he actually said was that the QCA will work with bodies and try to bring into its network a range of the in-house training provided. A much easier way to achieve that end would be to amend the Bill to change the word “relevant” to “appropriate” or “meaningful”. That would be a shorter journey, and perhaps a more fruitful one.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I agree, and I said that I was only moderately reassured. I will come to the larger area of non-reassurance. However, unless the Minister wants to intervene, I think that we have clarified the relevant point that it will be quite possible, in the example that the NUT gave, for somebody working in a car workshop to do an accountancy programme and the employer will not be able to object to it.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman believes that I have clarified the notion of “relevant”. On the intervention of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, I think that it is best to have a framework for the accreditation of qualifications so that the court does not have to interpret the sorts of words that he has set out. That is the danger of the approach that he is suggesting.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I think we have clarified the first point about the word “relevant”. However, I am concerned about the wider problem of the distinction that is apparent in the Bill between those in formal education and training, and those in work. I was not entirely convinced by the Minister’s explanation for insisting on accreditation in the workplace but allowing greater flexibility in educational settings. His argument was that in educational settings there are likely to be more of the very high-need and vulnerable youngsters, whom we have discussed on earlier occasions. They might find the accreditation option too challenging initially and might need time to adapt on courses that are not accredited.

The indication from the Association of Colleges and others is that we will find in employment not only people for whom non-accredited courses are providing a high level of skills and training, but people with learning difficulties and special needs. From my constituency experience, such people are often in job placements and, as the Association of Colleges indicated, they might find it difficult to get accredited qualifications.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I referred to the foundation learning tier. That has been designed specifically to offer those sorts of young people accredited qualifications that they are capable of achieving. Too often at the moment, we undervalue their achievements because we cannot accredit them. That is why we are developing that framework.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I understand that point, but I still do not see the logic of dealing with these two groups in different ways. I still think that there is not a sufficiently persuasive case for allowing a large degree of flexibility for those in formal educational settings, but insisting on a more rigorous and stringent approach to accreditation for those in work-based settings. I think that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was hinting at this point, but I too fear that the Government have something of an obsession with accreditation for its own sake and will not acknowledge that many non-accredited qualifications can be extremely valuable.

I do not want to go back too much to the wonderful Alison Wolf research, but in one of her previous books on the subject—not the analysis of the Bill that she published recently—there is a long record, both pre-dating and post-dating 1997, of Governments inventing accredited qualifications that have often proved to be not very valuable. In some case they appear to have negative value and they often appear to have far less value than non-accredited qualifications.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I agree about the less formal qualifications that the hon. Gentleman cites, which is why I hope that we might press amendment No. 13—he may wish to do what he will—for exactly the reasons that he made clear.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I indicated, we support amendment No. 13 and think that it is helpful. But I would also, Mr. Bayley, like to press amendment No. 162 to a Division because I still feel that it deals with an issue that has not been resolved satisfactorily as a consequence of the Minister’s comments.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in clause 6, page 4, line 1, after ‘means’, insert—

‘(a) the iGCSE and Cambridge Assessment Pre-U qualifications; and

(b) ’.

The purpose of clause 6 is to define the meaning of “accredited qualification” for the purpose of defining “relevant training or education”. The definition says that it should lead to a qualification recognised by the QCA under section 24(2)(g) of the Education Act 1997.

The QCA lists hundreds of qualifications, including an NVQ in leakage detection, a City and Guilds certificate in professional cooking, GCSEs in geography or physics, and an NOCN level 2 award in drawing and graphics for garden design. Literally hundreds of qualifications, academic and vocational, are included in the list, but no iGCSEs, despite the exam being a well-established qualification. In the UK, around half of all independent schools are using the iGCSE. The “i” stands for “international”, and the Cambridge version is in use in 2,000 schools in 125 countries around the world. In 2007 there was 10 per cent. growth in the use of the exam internationally. Edexcel also has an iGCSE exam, which is in use in 100 countries with some 350,000 entries per year. It reports the use of its exam in 200 independent schools.

CIE has also reported a keen interest in using the exam from schools in the state sector, something I have also noted in my visits to schools around the country. CIE says that some 50 maintained schools have applied to CIE to enter students for the iGCSE. The head of maths at Norton Knatchbull school in Kent was quoted in The Daily Telegraph in June 2006 as saying:

“It is really unfair, particularly when the qualification best suits the needs of our pupils, and ministers are always telling schools to tailor courses to suit individual children. Half of my pupils go on to do Maths A-level and the specification offered by the IGCSE would be much better for them. If Oundle can do it, why can't we?”

CIE has said that it believes that the iGCSE should be available for use in the state sector, and has applied to the QCA for accreditation. Ann Puntis, CIE’s chief executive, has said:

“The scale of independent schools’ use of the iGCSE risks causing an increasingly distorting effect on reporting of UK performance.”

She is referring to the fact that, because the iGCSE is not accredited by the QCA, if an independent school enters its students for the exam, the results do not count towards the five or more GCSE figure. This can result in a score of zero for the five or more figure, including English and Maths. Large independent schools, such as Eton or the Perse school in Cambridge are prepared to

“carry their zeros with pride”,

but less well-known schools need to have their results reported accurately, and may be deterred from using the exam for this reason alone, despite believing the iGCSE to be the most appropriate qualification and syllabus for their pupils. The most iniquitous fact is that state schools cannot use the exam. In clause 6, this means in effect that a student studying for iGCSEs will not be considered to be in relevant training or education, which is of course absurd. CIE on its website says:

“Failure to approve IGCSE under Section 96 funding has the potential to create a two-tier education system, in which pupils in independent schools can access curriculum opportunities denied to pupils in maintained schools...Much good practice currently exists in terms of partnerships between the independent and maintained sectors. Such beneficial collaborations may be risked by a curriculum divide along IGCSE/GCSE lines.”

Some people have complained that the iGCSE is too tough. This is not the view of CIE. It points out that all around the world young people in state schools take iGCSEs. Their teachers find it a motivating and rigorous programme, which provides an excellent platform for future study. The CIE goes on to cite an example in the United States of pupils at an underperforming school who flourished so much when they studied for the iGCSE that the school and its teachers receive a presidential award under the “No child left behind” legislation. The CIE states that the iGCSE provides

“a highly valuable educational experience consistent with the aims and values underpinning the national curriculum.”

The amendment also refers to the Cambridge Assessment pre-U qualification, which has been developed over the last few years in response to growing dissatisfaction with the A-level, particularly following the curriculum 2000 reforms. The headmaster of Eton, Tony Little, said:

“We want the best courses that challenge our students and, if that means doing the Pre-U instead of A-levels then we will do it”.

Graham Able, the headmaster of Dulwich college, said:

“I expect that more than 50 independent schools will offer the Pre-U, mostly instead of current A-levels”.

As the Bill is drafted, of course, the pre-U would not count as a level 3 qualification. I raised these arguments in moving amendment No. 5 to clause 3, so I will not rehearse them again today.

The pre-U is expected to be worth more than four A-levels, comprising three subjects and an extended research project. All the exams are taken at the end of two years, instead of in stages throughout each module. Therefore, less time will be spent preparing for tests, giving more time for teaching: 400 hours, instead of 360 hours for A-levels. It was reported in January that the QCA was expected to approve the pre-U imminently. I will try again to get an indication on the matter from the Minister; any would be appreciated.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My hon. Friend will understand my particular interest in universities and university entrance. Perhaps the Minister will confirm this, but as I understand it, universities are pressing hard for acceptance of this qualification. If they are satisfied, it would seem perverse for it not to be included in the Bill and acknowledged by the QCA.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

My hon. Friend makes a good point. A number of top universities in the country have already confirmed their acceptance of the qualification. My concern is that, if they come to regard the pre-U as a preferable qualification to the A-level, they may give preference to candidates with the pre-U, feeling that they are better prepared for university life. That would create an unfair advantage for independent school students, as the state sector cannot use that qualification.

It was reported that the pre-U’s introduction was imminent, so I hope that the Minister will comment on that. At the moment, neither the iGCSE nor the pre-U will count as accredited qualifications for the purposes of the legislation, and the amendments seek to put that right.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I have mixed feelings on the amendment. I am concerned that, in the future, there may be a great fragmentation of qualifications across the education system, instead of the greater coherence that the Government aspire to; a coherence whereby youngsters feel that they can take qualifications that are regarded as broadly equivalent, but that offer different routes forward, either through a more traditionally academic or a more classically vocational route.

There is a risk that we will end up with three or four different higher levels of qualification, of the type that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton referred to, because of the concerns in parts of the education system about the credibility and effectiveness of the existing A-levels and GCSEs. There will then be a middle tier of people potentially taking A-levels and GCSEs, and a quite unpredictable group of youngsters who will be taking the diplomas. We do not yet know whether those will be a success, or will be regarded as second-rate qualifications. We know that the Government are trying to deal with that question, not through the content of diplomas, but by trying to tilt the qualification value of diplomas in relation to GCSEs and A-levels.

It would be damaging to many young people’s future prospects, particularly those from more disadvantaged backgrounds, if we were to end up with a multi-tiered system of qualifications. Some schools with more challenging catchments could find that their young people are encouraged to take up qualifications that are seen to lead purely to vocational routes, and do not open up the potential to go on to any level within the traditionally academic system.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

We already have a two-tier system. The amendment and recognition of the iGCSE and the pre-U by the QCA would extend the availability of that qualification beyond the independent sector, making it a fairer system, not a less fair one.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I am coming to some comments that he may prefer to my former remarks. However, I wish to put on the record our concern that the increase in the number of high-tier—if I can put it that way—qualifications, seems to be a manifestation of a lack of confidence and credibility in the existing examination system, and a feeling among some universities and schools that there is no longer sufficient stretch within the traditional qualification system.

Mr. Tomlinson was very passionate about that in his report. His arguments for changing the qualification system in the country were not simply to open up more vocational qualifications and to deal with people who traditionally were not well served by GCSEs and A-levels. He was also concerned about the lack of stretch at the top end of the system and the fact that many schools find a huge proportion of their candidates being graded at the top level. They feel that qualifications such as A-levels do not stretch the abilities of their pupils enough. If that is a major concern, the Government should look to adapt some of the existing qualifications to provide that degree of stretch.

I hope that I do not sound too old-fashioned if I say that the Government should look at measures such as the S-level qualification that we used to have in my day. That was a good way of providing a stretch at the top of the system, without requiring youngsters to go through a system of force-feeding that would give advantage to a youngster from one particular educational setting over another.

However, if there are institutions that are concerned about the existing qualifications, want to do the best by their young people and are able to offer qualifications that have real status and credibility, not to acknowledge that within the educational system, the Bill and the league tables would be wrong and foolish. I have schools in my constituency that would fall into the category mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. They are not necessarily the Etons of the educational establishment—who probably are not too worried about being included in the league tables, as they are generally regarded as performing at a high level—but schools such as the Park school in Yeovil. That is an independent school that this year had a zero in the relevant category for GSCE examinations because it takes the iGCSE that is not presently permitted to have the same status as other qualifications within the system.

If the Government are as concerned about the proliferation of these qualifications as I am, it would be wrong for them to deal with the problem by trying to throttle the qualifications that schools see as providing stretch. The answer must be to deal with the underlying problems within the existing qualification system. If the Government’s assessments show that these qualifications have credibility and meet the requirements for this level, I hope that notwithstanding their concerns—which may be similar to mine—they will move in the direction suggested by the hon. Gentleman. We look forward to clarification from the Minister, who is smiling in a knowing way.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It is tempting to engage in a wide-ranging debate about the iGCSE, the pre-U and the A-level. We could discuss whether the iGSCE should be accredited or whether it is compatible with the national curriculum, given that it does not include compulsory study of Shakespeare, or any other author that is prescribed for the programme of study for the GCSE in English, or whether there is a non-calculator paper for iGCSE maths. We could debate all these things at length, but I do not think it is appropriate—

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Is the Minister intimating that the iGCSE is a less rigorous exam in English and maths than the GCSE?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Not necessarily—I am just saying that we could debate all these things at some length. Similarly, as regards the measures that were taken to strengthen A-levels, it would be very tempting to compare the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, when he wanted to see the A-level flourish, with the notion that we should weaken it by having competing qualifications such as the pre-U.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I thought that the Government’s view was very much in favour of competition in qualifications, which was why they set up the competition between the diplomas and A-levels and GCSEs.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

We certainly are in favour of a strong range of qualifications for young people to study, however the amendment is unnecessary. If the qualifications referred to in it are accredited, they will come under the definition of an accredited qualification in any case, without the need to specify them separately. If they are accredited, my Department will make a decision then on whether to approve them for funding in maintained institutions under section 96 in the usual way.

I should not comment further in advance of that decision. Independent schools are free to offer whatever qualifications they like, and young people doing iGCSE or, in due course, the pre-U full time in those schools, will meet the terms of this legislation whether those qualifications are accredited or not.

The clause is about part-time training, alongside full-time employment. It is very unlikely that a young person will, for example, be doing the pre-U part time alongside employment. But if those qualifications are accredited, that would meet the requirements of the legislation. I would therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I was interested in the Minister’s response, and we will await the decision of the QCA on these qualifications. I hope that it makes the right decision, because if it is appraising hundreds and hundreds of exams, it will seem perverse and somewhat ideologically driven not to accredit two very well-established, credible and rigorous exams that Cambridge university—one of the top universities in this country—has created through Cambridge Assessment.

The Minister made the odd point that competition would weaken matters. That may show a difference of philosophy between Labour and Opposition Members, but Conservative Members strongly believe that competition strengthens all participants in the market place and that competition between exams will strengthen the A-level. One of my motives behind wanting to see the iGCSE accredited is that it will focus the minds of people at the QCA, when they bring in curriculum changes, to understand that they have to look at the popularity of the GCSE. They should not engage in further reforms that weaken the exams, as has happened over the last several years.

It will be beneficial to our exam system, making it more cohesive and less fragmented, if we allow the iGCSE, because in the long run it will strengthen A-level and GCSE exams. I was interested in the Minister’s comments that full-time students at school, taking exclusively iGCSEs or pre-Us, will be fulfilling the duty in this Bill. It is a pity that he will not relent in allowing these exams to constitute the relevant education and training for the purpose of the Bill, because since the QCA has not recognised these qualifications, a student who was in work and taking these exams would fall foul of the duties of this Bill, which would be absurd. However, as this was a probing amendment to draw out some response from the Ministers, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 7

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Briefly, given the importance of clauses 7, 8 and 9, I wonder whether the Minister would introduce them and allow us an explanation of the clause from his viewpoint.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I do not know whether this is helpful or not, but I wanted to draw attention to a couple of issues and questions around the meaning and effect of the clause. I can either do that now or in response to an introduction of the clause by the Minister.

The clause defines a relevant period when a person will be subject to the duties set out in the Bill. The Bill provides for people to switch backwards and forwards between different classes of obligation in relation to formal education and training, apprenticeships and work-based education and training. How will the relevant period be viewed in circumstances where a young person withdraws from a course? We heard in evidence to the Committee that the take-up and withdrawal rates from some of these courses can be extremely high, particularly in the further education sector. There can also be cases, which I have experienced in my local area, where a course starts up and then collapses rapidly, usually because of the small numbers of people that are involved or because a specialist member of staff goes off sick or resigns. In the evidence that we heard earlier, there was some uncertainty about what obligations would then fall to a young person who, in the relevant period, was not in any of the education or training settings specified in the Bill. Will the Minister say something about how the relevant period will be viewed, where such a course falls away?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The clause means that some young people in full-time employment, for example those changing routes mid-year, will know how much training they need to do. We recognise that some young people want to go into employment when they leave school at 16 and that they can gain very valuable skills and experience from doing so. At the same time, we believe that they should continue their formal learning, through part-time education or training, to enable them to gain the further qualifications that will help them to progress in their careers and adapt to changes in the labour market.

We must set out clearly for young people and their employers the time period within which they are required to undertake a certain amount of training. The basic requirement is 280 hours, as I am sure we will discuss shortly in respect of clause 8, but we need to allow flexibility for young people to change the way in which they are participating mid-year, and therefore for periods of less than a year. The period should start from whenever a young person starts participating in this way, otherwise they could have accrued enough hours by temporarily being in full-time education at the start of the year and then drop out and work for the rest of the year. The clause defines that time period and therefore must stand part of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Yeovil is looking perplexed. If it helps him, the relevant period begins either as soon as the young person is not participating through any of the other routes—full-time education or training or an apprenticeship—or immediately after the end of the last relevant period, such as when a young person has already been participating through full-time work and part-time training for a year, and the next year begins. The relevant period ends on a date to be prescribed in regulations, possibly the end of the academic year, or when the young person starts participating in a different way—full-time education or training or an apprenticeship—or when they stop being subject to the duty altogether, for example when they turn 18, or achieve level 3, or move out of England.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

What would happen in the case of a young person aged 16, perhaps in employment, who was on a particular course that collapsed half-way through the year? If that is the course that is suitable for that young person, perhaps because it has a high support component or because of their career aspirations, and it is not possible to go on another local course until the beginning of the new academic year, how would the relevant period be viewed and would there be some disapplication of that?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

If the course stops, the young person should be assisted to find an alternative. Receiving such assistance or waiting for another course to begin are good reasons for not participating and, therefore, no enforcement action would be taken. The technical answer is that the relevant period would end when the course collapsed. That is because the way in which the young person was participating would change and a new period would begin. There is good reason for them having to wait before they take on a new course. Therefore, the interpretation is that during that time, no enforcement will take place.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

That is helpful. The Minister said that the relevant period might end when a course collapsed. The implication was that the young person would not start again until it was clear what courses were available. Is that the correct interpretation?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

That is how I would interpret it given my current level of understanding. If my level of understanding develops and I interpret it differently, I will let the Committee know. I hope that that is helpful. On that basis, I hope that the clause will stand part of the Bill.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

As ever, I find myself to be moderately reassured. I had a slight sense that the Minister was winging it a bit, which is not something that one usually associates with the hon. Gentleman. As the issue is important, I want to seek clarification again and give an opportunity for any pieces of paper to pass. I think that the Minister said that it was possible that the relevant period could be suspended and come to an end if a course collapsed and could remain suspended, not requiring a particular attitude by an attendance or appeal panel. The relevant period could stop for a time until courses were re-established at the beginning of a new academic year. I press the matter not just because of the uncertainty but because that could be quite a frequent occurrence. We do know that a large number of youngsters—I cannot remember the exact figures that were cited in evidence to us—leave courses for various reasons during a year. Presumably, a minority of those will be because a course has collapsed, but in some cases, it will be because a young person has decided that the course is inappropriate for them. A different test may be applied to those individuals. I want to clarify whether it is true that the relevant period will be suspended when a course collapses, and whether the relevant period will restart when the new academic year begins. Also, will those circumstances be the same for cases in which a young person decides to terminate their involvement in a course, or will that be viewed differently by the Minister?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. My understanding has developed as I have read further and reflected on the wording in the legislation. The relevant period starts whenever a young person starts to participate in full-time or part-time training. It does not stop when the course stops. The period ends when the young person starts participating in a different way. The new relevant period would commence when the young person starts the course.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I think that the Minister is saying that the relevant period will not be suspended, which is a refinement of what he was saying earlier. Is the assumption, therefore, that in all of those cases, a judgment would need to be made by an attendance panel as to whether the person had good reason not to be in an education or training setting? Would that then require an assessment to be made by the panel of whether or not the person could legitimately be on other courses that might be offered by the further education establishment, which might involve the panel in quite difficult decisions about which courses it felt obliged to compel a young person to attend.

Jim Knight rose—

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

There might be a little confusion about who is giving way to whom. My understanding is that the Minister did not make an intervention, but a request to speak.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

What a delight it is to see you in your place, Mr. Bercow, and to be serving under your guidance this afternoon.

Clause 7 defines the relevant period, and says when it starts and finishes. We had a fascinating discussion about that. In particular, we explored the scenario posed by the hon. Member for Yeovil about what happens when a course collapses, in his phrase, and whether that would lead to a decision from an attendance panel and whether the collapse of a course would be a reasonable excuse. I do not intend to detain the Committee, suffice it to deal with that scenario. Hopefully, we will then decide on the clause, which I obviously recommend to the Committee.

If a person’s part-time training collapsed while they were in full-time work, the case would not of course go anywhere near an attendance panel, because support would kick in at that point—enforcement would be inappropriate, assuming that no other appropriate course was available. The relevant period stops when the young person stops participating in full-time education or an apprenticeship, or when the next academic year begins. It would not be suspended if a course is withdrawn. If that happened, the learning provider or Connexions would help to provide an alternative. While a person is receiving help or waiting for the identified alternative course to begin, they would not be subject to enforcement action, because they would have a reasonable excuse and because the local authority cannot take any such action unless a young person has been given adequate opportunity to participate voluntarily. Clearly, the absence of an alternative suitable course would mean that a person has not been given adequate opportunity to participate voluntarily, so no enforcement action would be taken. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Committee.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I am grateful to the Minister, and I welcome you back to the Chair for this afternoon’s sitting, Mr. Bercow.

The Minister helpfully clarified some of his comments, but I wish to press him a little further. He said that if someone’s course collapses, which would mean that they were no longer compliant with the education and training requirement, they would be helped to find an alternative by the education provider. Does he accept that in a rural area, for example, there might not be an alternative provider within a reasonable distance? There is a real issue about what alternative provision might be in such a situation. The expectations of a young person who is interested in some specific course or support that was offered through a college might be different from the alternatives.

There are examples in my constituency where, on a number of occasions, courses have not got off the ground or they have fallen through part way through the year. I have received letters from people who are very upset at having lost that provision and who clearly do not feel that a reasonable alternative has been offered. I am not sure that I want those people to be pushed back into an alternative that is specified by the college or by a local authority as suitable, because that might not meet the needs of the young person.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It will be incumbent on the local authority—clause 10 specifies the authorities’ duty to promote fulfilment—to ensure that an alternative is appropriate. People should not be compelled to take up an inappropriate offer of education or training made by their advisers.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I understand the Minister’s point, but it does not necessarily reassure us that, in areas where the breadth of provision might not be as wide as we would like, viable alternatives will be available that young people want to take up. I am still unsure whether enforcement action would be taken if a course fell through in the mid-year period or even early in the conventional academic year. What if no other course was on offer that matched the original needs of the young people and there was not to be another course until at least the new academic year when, say, a new teacher might be in place? Would those young people be required against their wishes to enter another course for a time instead of waiting until the new course was established in the new academic year?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

If no other relevant training or education was available that was appropriate to the young person, enforcement action could not be taken. As soon as the matter reached the attendance panel, it would throw it out as the young person having had reasonable excuse for not fulfilling his duty.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I do not want to labour the issue, but the Minister puts local authorities in a difficult position. He referred to relevant education and training. Who is to say whether it would be relevant for a young person with aspirations in a particular career sector, and who was looking for particular education and training, suddenly to discover that the course that they wanted, had been offered or were, perhaps, on, folded and, instead of being offered a course relevant to their needs, they were offered something that sounded to the education provider and local authority to be something that they would expect the young person to be involved in, but the young person did not wish to be involved in it? I accept that we cannot resolve the problem now, but will the hon. Gentleman reflect on it and consider whether that person will have the option to stay out of what he believes to be inappropriate education or training until, for example, the right type of new course becomes available in the new academic year?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Clause 4 sets out appropriate full-time education and training. However, we are discussing part-time education and training because the people are in full-time employment. It is not appropriate for me to prescribe the detail in respect of individual scenarios. That is why independent attendance panels are part of the design of the whole system. As we have discussed, the local authority may enforce; it does not have to enforce. Local authority officers would have to assess whether or not to take up the option knowing that their local attendance panel would judge matters on the basis of whether there was an alternative appropriate form of training.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

That is precisely what I am worried about and dislike. The Minister says that it will be up to local officials to decide what they think is in the best interests of young people and to withdraw that power from the young people themselves. On the say-so of those individuals, young people could be forced back into a course mid-year that is completely unsuitable and that they do not wish to take up in order to meet the Government’s targets and to demonstrate that 100 per cent. of the cohorts are in education and training, instead of their being allowed to stay out of the education and training market until a suitable course is available.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It seems that the hon. Gentleman has the Minister on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, the Minister says that there will be flexibility in that the local authorities will have discretion yet, on the other hand, he is saying now, and was so during our hungry pursuit of such matters just before lunch, that he will not amend the Bill to broaden the definition of what training will be permitted, to include all that is meaningful and appropriate. He said that it must be relevant. That is a highly loaded term. The Minister wants the Bill to be inflexible, but interpreted flexibly.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I agree entirely. The hon. Gentleman makes yet another devastating point, which helps to hit at the very structure of the Bill and the compulsion contained within it.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am not devastated by the point, but by my apparent inability to persuade the hon. Gentleman that things will not be down to the individual officer. In the end, an attendance panel would have to be persuaded, so it is down to several individuals. If it is clear that there is no alternative relevant training or education, it would be a perfectly reasonable excuse for the individual to carry on for some period with full-time employment, waiting for an appropriate part-time course to become available.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

That may be of some use, but I fear that it is so vague that what it means in practice could vary enormously throughout the country. Let us take the example provided by the National Union of Teachers of a young person on a car mechanics course who also wants to do an accountancy qualification, not wanting to be in the car mechanics business for ever. Let us say that the young person gets on a course at a college to do some form of accountancy relevant to their aspirations. The individual who runs the course becomes ill, moves away or is made redundant, and the course collapses. No equivalent course is available in the catchment area, and the local authority then considers what other courses are available in the college setting. There may be a business-related course, or a mathematics for business course. Are those acceptable relevant alternatives that the Minister would want to compel the young person to take up?

Alternatively, if the young person considered that the courses might be relevant in some way to their general interest, but were not the specific course they wanted and they wanted the option to wait perhaps 18 months for the next accountancy course to come along—after the further education college had, hopefully, recruited a new person—how on earth could local authorities know what the definition of “relevant” is, to determine whether to force the young person to take the alternative course? Will we end up with all sorts of different circumstances around the country, depending on the generosity of the local officers’ view, and their interpretation of the Minister’s comments which may also vary?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I would expect those advising the young person to be mindful of where they wanted to end up, of whether there was an alternative appropriate to the pathway of learning on which they were set, and of whether taking up a course in the interim before the alternative became available would preclude the funding of the alternative that the young person really wanted. All those things would have to be borne in mind so that the young person could achieve his potential and go on the pathway he was after. In this case, “relevant” is irrelevant, if that is not too confusing. It does not mean that the course must be relevant to anything that the young person is doing or wants to do, but simply that it is relevant for the purposes of part-time education or training as a way of fulfilling the duty.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

We understand that “relevant” may be irrelevant, but we are still confused about how the duties will be applied in practice, and we fear that there will be an enormous element of judgment surrounding the matter.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Flexibility.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

The Minister calls it flexibility. I call it confusion, potentially, in the way in which the duty may be implemented in the future. I shall not labour the point, Mr. Bercow, not only because I may try your patience, but because there may be other opportunities later in the Bill to clarify the point by way of amendments.

May I prompt the Minister to consider the subsidiary issue that I raised of circumstances in which the course has not collapsed, but the young person’s interest in or commitment to it has ended? We heard a lot of evidence in the evidence sessions that the rate at which young people leave such courses early on is very high. Presumably, many of those leave on a voluntary basis. Are the attendance panels and local authorities likely to take a different attitude towards young people who decide to terminate their involvement in a course compared with those whose course terminates their involvement? Will there be less flexibility?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

No, the same flexibility will have to apply. I remind the Committee that we are talking about people in full-time employment who are also in part-time training. One would expect the personal Connexions adviser to bear in mind the needs of the individual. If they have become disengaged from their part-time course, another part-time course should be found that they have a reasonable chance of completing and which will fulfil their needs. They must not use the ability to nip from one thing to the other to flout their duties under the Bill.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I assume that if a young person leaves a course very late in the academic year, it will be possible to reach the conclusion that restarting another course at that stage would not be sensible. They should be given some latitude to wait until a new course starts.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

In that scenario, it might be pragmatic to wait until the prescribed date set out in clause 7(3)(a), which by regulation is very likely to be the start of the next academic year.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I am grateful to the Minister for his patience and for his responses. I think that we have made a tiny bit of progress and we will return to this issue.

Clause 8

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It is appropriate to say a word or two about the clause standing part because, according to the explanatory notes:

“Clause 8 provides that, if a person fulfils the duty to participate by working and pursuing part time education or training towards an accredited qualification, then the training provided by a person’s employer, or any other education or training towards accredited qualifications, must be equivalent to 280 guided learning hours”.

The phrase that matters is “guided learning hours”.

The Committee heard from Professor Lorna Unwin during the evidence sessions, and I recommend her work to you and the Committee, Mr. Bercow. She is an authority on training and particularly on apprenticeships. She told the Committee that some apprenticeships contain little or no guided or mentored workplace learning. That is a shocking fact. Who would believe that an apprenticeship can be worthy of its name if it is not mentored, does not contain a workplace element or is not employer-engaged?

To be fair to the Minister and the Government, they have recently issued an apprenticeship review, which I have critiqued—as you will know, Mr. Bercow, because I sent you a copy. That review suggests provision for a statutory definition of what constitutes an apprenticeship. That is something that I have called for, as the Minister with responsibility for skills acknowledged before the publication of the review. It would be an important point of progress. I presume that that definition will include a minimum baseline requirement for workplace training, mentoring and—by definition—employer engagement.

It is critical that the Bill reflects the Government’s change commitment. I do not blame the Minister that that provision is not in it because it was drawn up before the review was published. However, he could reflect on whether thought needs to be given to guided learning hours to bring it into line with current Government thinking.

I want to say a little more about Lorna Unwin. Professor Unwin told the Committee that sometimes

“the employer does not really play any role in the actual training for a number of apprenticeships. What is happening—this links again to the concept of the competence-based NVQ—the training provider goes into the employer’s premises and assesses the young person against the competences and the key skills, and perhaps even having the apprenticeships for their off-the-job training in the training provider’s premises. I meet many employers whose role is entirely that of employer, in the sense that the young person is there to do a job of work.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 24 January 2008; c. 106, Q270.]

In other words, there is a gap between their role as an employer and their role as an organisation assisting with the training of young people. The Bill goes some way to bridging that gap by creating new duties, but we need to be absolutely clear what guided learning hours mean in this context.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

To help the hon. Gentleman, the clause does not apply to apprenticeships. It is about part-time education and training alongside full-time work.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am grateful to the Minister. That is helpful, but it does not entirely deal with the issue about what constitutes guided learning hours. I am pleased that apprenticeships themselves are not included, but Lorna Unwin’s work deals with training in a broader sense. I referred in particular to apprenticeships, but her work deals with all kinds of training. National vocational qualifications are part of that package. I suspect that many of the young we are dealing with, who are some of the most disadvantaged and challenging of young people, will first find themselves in pre-apprenticeship training. That might include a range of NVQ options because to get on to a full apprenticeship without that training will simply not be possible because of their competences. I take the Minister’s point, but it is not an entire answer to the argument advanced by Professor Unwin.

Professor Unwin argues that many employers are providing perfectly acceptable work placements, but are not necessarily engaged in substantive training. It will therefore be for the Minister to explain to the Committee how the Government will judge what constitutes guided learning hours. The phrase “guided learning hours” suggests training that is directed and mentored, be it at apprenticeship, pre-apprenticeship or sub-apprenticeship level. Surely all training should involve systematic workplace training under a skilled mentor. The experience of the trainee in the workplace should not simply be a work placement. We cannot just put people into workplaces and assume that that includes, implicitly, a level of training. I wish the Minister would enlighten the Committee on how the Government will ensure that this aspect of the Bill is effected in a way that benefits both employers and, more especially in this context, trainees.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

It is important that we ensure that training for young people, even at entry level, trains them for future career advancement. I would not like to see a sort of tick-box mentality to training where young people leave school at 16, work at a cash till for two years with no prospect of career advancement, and a training certificate is produced at the end of it to keep the authorities happy. Although they will have learned important skills from having to go into work, such as arriving on time, interacting with colleagues, getting up in the morning and being punctual, it is not entirely clear that they will have a skill that they can go on to leverage into future careers and future jobs. I hope that the Minister can also respond to those brief points.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The clause specifies the number of hours that a young person must spend participating in guided learning, and defines the latter. I point the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to subsection (3), which states that a person is in “actual guided learning” if they are

“being taught or given instruction by a lecturer, tutor, supervisor or other appropriate provider of training or education, or...otherwise participating in education or training under the immediate guidance or supervision of such a person, but does not include time spent on unsupervised preparation or study, whether at home or otherwise”.

We want such training to be accredited, because we want to ensure that it is useful. Some would argue that we could accredit any old thing. We must ensure that that is not the case and that accredited training helps people to get on and to improve their skill levels, rather than keep them where they are and give them certificates for the hell of it.

We have debated the importance of accrediting training undertaken by young people alongside employment. That training needs to be for a period sufficient to lead to an accredited qualification to help young people to make progress in their careers, adapt to changes in the labour market and provide skills demanded by employers and the economy. We regard 280 hours a year as the minimum time that a young person needs to achieve a further qualification by the time that they are 19. That equates to roughly a day a week over the course of a year, although the Bill does not prescribe that it must be delivered in that way. As ever, we want to be flexible. Participating for less than an average of a day a week would reduce a young person’s likelihood of achieving a worthwhile accredited qualification.

Without clause 8 there would be no minimum participation requirement for those young people undertaking part-time training alongside employment. It also provides the definition of guided learning, which I read out, and which is also needed for clause 5 to clarify the type of learning in which young people must participate alongside employment to fulfil their duty under clause 2. Without clause 8 we could not ensure that young people access appropriate learning for the amount of time necessary to gain an accredited qualification.

That provision will not normally apply to apprenticeships, because they are normally full-time. To reassure the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, programme-led apprenticeships will not count towards the target of expanding apprenticeships that we announced. A person will be counted only after he or she has a contract of employment. Programme-led apprenticeships will be a useful pre-entry route for some young people. The 90,000 extra apprenticeships that we want to develop as we bring in this duty must involve a contract of employment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not want to digress into apprenticeships, for you would not allow me to do so, Mr. Bercow. I used apprenticeships as an example owing to the doubts supported by evidence and expressed by a number of people that in those programmes—not only programme-led apprenticeships, but level 2 and 3 apprenticeships—there was insufficient mentoring and guided learning. If that applied to apprenticeships, would it not apply all the more so to other training? I think that the Minister has made it clear that the Bill sets out a series of parameters. However, to be even more helpful, how will that vary according to the size of companies and sectors? Clearly different sectors of the workplace have different imperatives and that it will be a much greater imposition on very small companies than on very large ones.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

There would be some flexibility, but in the end all would have to be accredited. Accreditation must ensure that all the factors have been got right and allow for the flexibility to appreciate the different sectors. We are expanding the number of occupation sectors to which apprenticeships would apply, some of which will by necessity provide much more practical training, as he said. That is for the accreditation to define.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

On a point of clarification. I may have misunderstood the clause, or not read it clearly enough, but is it possible that a young person could fulfil their obligations in respect of this legislation by undertaking 280 hours of guided learning, which, if we use a 40-week school year, equates to one day a week, without doing anything else? In the Minister’s previous comments, he made it clear that the young person should also be undertaking another occupation. I may not have understood it clearly enough, but I wonder whether the clause can be interpreted as meaning that the young person had totally fulfilled their obligations by doing 280 hours and nothing else.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

No, the way the Bill is drafted means that that section refers to those who are in full-time employment, but fulfilling their duty by also taking on part-time education or training. I hope that that is helpful. On that basis, I hope that the Committee is happy to agree the clause.

Clause 9

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Will the Minister explain to the Committee the purpose of the clause and why it is that we need the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to assign a number of guided hours to every qualification? Is it to fulfil the functions in clause 8 so that we know whether a particular qualification requires 280 hours of guided learning? Will it, therefore, apply to all existing QCA accredited qualifications, or will it apply just to new qualifications? The clause does not make that clear. It states:

“Any accreditation of a qualification under paragraph (g) of subsection (2) must assign to the qualification a number of notional hours”.

It is not clear to me whether that phrase requires the QCA to go through all several hundred qualifications, in which case could the Minister say how many qualifications are to be assigned those hours and what the cost to the QCA would be? If the exercise is being conducted solely because of clause 8, it is a very large commitment for the QCA to undertake simply to fulfil one part of a Bill. If it is just new qualifications that are to be assigned hours as part of the accreditation process, that begs the question of how clause 8 will be fulfilled. How can people use existing qualifications that do not have notional hours assigned to them? An explanation from the Minister will be very helpful.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It is important that guided learning hours are assigned to all qualifications so that it is easy and clear for young people in full-time employment and their employers to tell whether they are doing enough training to fulfil the duty to participate. The QCA already assigns guided learning hours as part of its accreditation process, but it is not legally required to do so. The clause ensures that guided learning hours will continue to be assigned to qualifications in the future. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, the QCA already does it in relation to all the qualifications that it accredits. Therefore, we know the number of guided learning hours for existing qualifications. By law, the QCA will have to do it for all new qualifications. I think, therefore, the issues of consistency and of burden are addressed for him.

The definition of sufficient part-time training in clause 8 relies on guided learning hours being assigned to qualifications. Therefore, it is important to put beyond doubt that that will continue to happen. The clause must stand part of the Bill and I, therefore, ask the Committee to agree it.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Given that the QCA already assigns guided learning hours, why is it necessary to legislate? I do not see why the Minister thinks that the QCA will not continue to assign notional hours as part of the accreditation process.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

On one level, I could expect the QCA to continue do so, but, given that it is fundamental to the design of the legislation that it should do so, it seems as well to legislate to ensure that it happens by statute rather than by my encouragement. However, I do that confident in the notion that the QCA has already assigned notional hours as part of the accreditation process for pre-existing qualifications, so there will be no problems with the inheritance of that responsibility. The QCA does it now, and it will be done in the future.

Clause 10

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I beg to move amendment No. 165, in clause 10, page 5, line 32, leave out from ‘must’ to ‘persons’ in line 34 and insert

‘secure a sufficient and appropriate supply of provision for’.

We have reached a landmark. We have cleared chapter 1 and raced on to chapter 2. So, all hon. Members can feel reinvigorated that we have passed the first hurdle. The next chapter deals with the duties on local education authorities and educational institutions. Clause 10 is important, establishing the duty on local education authorities to promote the participation of young people in education or training in their area who are subject to the duty to participate. There have been many comments on the clause, which have led to this group of amendments, starting with amendment No. 165.

In a nutshell, most of the people who have made representations to us on the matter are concerned about the imbalance between the responsibilities on young people to comply with the obligations of the Bill, and the rather looser ones on local authorities to ensure an appropriate supply of places in order to allow the education and training option and perhaps other forms of support to be taken up.

The special educational consortium was one of the bodies that made representations to the Committee early on, indicating its concern about the balance of responsibilities between individuals and local education authorities. In a briefing note to the Committee issued jointly with the Royal National Institute for Blind People, on 14 January, it stated that:

“The duty is so general as to be unenforceable”,

and contrasted it unfavourably with the duty on young people, including the penalties and criminal sanctions contained in the Bill.

The amendment seeks to make the duty upon local authorities clearer and more general, in not constraining it only to education and training. The original clause provides a responsibility

“to promote the effective participation in education or training of persons belonging to its area”

to whom the Bill applies.

The amendment ensures that a local education authority is obliged to secure a sufficient and appropriate supply of provisions to those persons. Therefore, it not only provides a stronger requirement on local authorities, but opens up some of those fourth option solutions about which we were talking earlier, to ensure that support services other than education or training are being provided, which might ensure that young people can engage in the future with education and training. Other amendments, tabled by the Conservative party, deal in slightly different ways with the same consideration, including amendments Nos. 14, 84 and 148, to some extent.

However, there have been concerns that the Bill should go even further and the duty should be clearer. Therefore, we have tabled the amendment, which was suggested to us in a representation sent by the Special Educational Consortium, that other members of the Committee may have seen. It places an explicit duty on local authorities to ensure that there are sufficient and appropriate opportunities for young people in their area to participate in education and training. The consortium sets out some of its concerns, in particular that the needs of young people with disabilities are often not met adequately and they often end up leaving the education system at 16. It says:

“The Disability Rights Commission found that non-disabled young people are twice as likely as their disabled peers to transfer to the sixth form or college at 16 plus”.

It said that has a significant impact on life chances, and continued:

“By the age of 19, 9 per cent. of non-disabled young people are not in education, employment or training, but 27 per cent. of disabled young people are in the same category.”

That is a significant concern, particularly for that group of young people, although the amendment would apply to all those who would be caught by the duty. It would impose an obligation on the local authority to ensure a wide range of provision for all those youngsters who need it. We will talk about some of those groups in a moment.

The Special Educational Consortium said:

“We believe there needs to be a stronger duty on local authorities to secure appropriate opportunities for young people in their area. As the Bill is currently drafted, responsibilities fall disproportionately on individual pupils with criminal sanctions for those who are not in appropriate full-time education or training.”

It believes that provision should be better tailored to local needs, particular of young people with special educational needs.

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

The hon. Gentleman makes the Special Educational Consortium’s case persuasively. I have also heard its case, and I agree that we must put much greater emphasis on local authorities’ obligation to provide support. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that support outside the school for children with special educational needs and disabilities is as crucial as that within it? Does he welcome the investment and initiatives that the Secretary of State and Lord Adonis in the other place have brought forward in the past 12 months to provide support to those families?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I certainly agree with the first point that support outside the school or educational setting is as important, and we welcome many of the measures in that area. Our point, and that of many of the bodies that have made representations to us, is that there is still a big gap in reality between the level of support needed and what is available.

In the final part of its representations, the Special Educational Consortium says that it recognises

“that the duties set out in this amendment could not be implemented until the funding and the responsibility are transferred to local authorities”.

That obviously requires further legislation. The consortium wants a commitment from the Minister that when the Government introduce legislative proposals, they will include a duty on local authorities to secure sufficient and appropriate provision.

Other groups that gave evidence to the Committee have made many similar points. TreeHouse, a charity for those with autism, said in its representations that there was a need to strengthen the responsibilities on local authorities.

We received detailed representation from Barnardo’s, which gave oral evidence to the Committee. Sadly, its detailed amendments came to me slightly too late to be included, but they seek a similar effect to amendment No. 165. Barnardo’s approaches the matter from a slightly different perspective from that of Conservative Members because it is more sympathetic than we are to the compulsion and criminalisation elements. However, it agrees strongly that the Bill will work only if there is appropriate provision for those hard-to-reach young people, and that it needs to go beyond education and training.

The paper from Barnardo’s to the Committee details the four priority areas for expansion of existing services. It refers to the need for more work-based learning— particularly transitional provision to reconnect the most disaffected and disengaged young people and to help them to address barriers. It suggests that at the moment, support services are not adequate for young people, which includes teenage parents, young carers, young people with learning difficulties and disabilities, and those with mental health problems. It also wants to see an expansion in provision, with suitable routes for progression, for young people with learning difficulties, many of whom drop out at 16 or take repeated courses.

There is widespread concern—among both those who do not support the existing compulsion and criminalisation and those who do—that there must be a greater acceptance by local authorities of their duties to provide. There must be adequate funding, not only from central Government but also from local authorities, to provide those services that can often be very expensive.

In earlier sittings, the Minister acknowledged his willingness to open up the possibility of a fourth option that does not restrain us to something that looks like education and training in its narrowest sense. The clause indicates that the obsession with activities to do with what we regard as education and training, is very much there in the Bill. We want to ensure that that is widened out so that young people who need other routes back into education and training can have those routes opened up to them— in exceptional cases, even for long periods of time—and to ensure that there is a realistic pathway back into education and training.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

You certainly know, Mr. Bercow, and the Minister may know of my interest in matters to do with special educational needs and disability. Therefore, I will not waste this opportunity to say a word about those interests in relation to the amendment which, I think, does the hon. Member for Yeovil great justice. It is right that at this juncture we should consider the particular challenges facing employers and young people who have disabilities or special educational needs. The two challenges above all others are the attitudes of employers and young people. Many of the barriers associated with getting young people with special educational needs and disabilities into employment are due to people’s belief in their own potential. That can be greatly assisted by the right kind of advice, guidance and support.

I have seen at first hand—as I am sure the Minister and other members of the Committee will have done—how young people with the most profound challenges can be supported in employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster is a doughty champion of young people in her constituency with those challenges. She was kind enough to introduce me to the realistic opportunities for supported employment project, which she never misses an opportunity to champion in the House—I hope that I am not stealing her thunder. That project takes people with very profound difficulties and, using appropriate levels of support, places them in work and gives training opportunities which, until seen, one would scarcely believe possible. That one is an exemplar, but there are projects like that up and down the country that must and will form part of making the Bill a success.

The hon. Member for Yeovil rightly pointed out that the number of young disabled people who are not in education, employment or training is a shockingly high 27 per cent. If we are to place new duties on individuals, employers and local authorities, we must be clear about the support and resources that will be necessary to change attitudes both of young people, who need to be enlivened and have their personal aspirations rejuvenated, and of employers who must know what is expected of them to make those opportunities possible.

The hon. Gentleman quoted a number of organisations, and he could have quoted many more, which support the thrust of what he said. I have had discussions with a number of organisations representing disabled people that share his concern that the Bill should be specific about the duties on local authorities. Knowing your personal commitment and interest in these matters, Mr. Bercow, I know that you will take a great interest, as I do, in this part of our considerations.

The amendment is a useful addition to our consideration and it may be something that the Government want to reflect on further. Again, it concerns sufficient appropriate provision. This word “appropriate” is coming to punctuate our considerations. It seems that “meaningful” and “appropriate” are sometimes more useful ways of expressing this kind of opportunity than “relevant” because, as I said earlier, “relevant” is a rather loaded term.

On that basis, I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contribution and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that the Bill, for all its faults—we all have our doubts about it—will, at the very least, act as a catalyst for engagement with training and employment on the part of young, challenged, disabled and disadvantaged young people.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I absolutely agree that the key to the success of this policy will be ensuring that there is an appropriate—the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will be delighted that I use that word—worthwhile and engaging learning place for every young person, including those with special educational needs. The amendment would reduce the duty of the local authority to solely that of securing appropriate provision. While that is clearly an important part of ensuring that all young people participate, the duty set out in clause 10 is currently much wider than that, and is not confined to any one local authority function. It could encompass economic development or regeneration activity, or the local authority’s responsibility for careers guidance for 16 to 19-year-olds, as provided for in the Employment and Training Act 1973, and other activities that are not directly linked to the securing of provision for education and training. Those broader functions are essential for promoting the culture of participation and achievement that Opposition Members are in favour of.

Some interesting points were raised in the debate, particularly about those with special educational needs. The hon. Member for Yeovil said that the legislation was very vague and insufficient in terms of the duties on local authorities. I remind him of some of the other duties contained in the Bill. From Royal Assent, whenever that may be, and subject to the will of Parliament, there will be measures relating to support functions, such as clause 54, on the duty to provide Connexions services. There will be a duty to arrange assessments of the learning difficulties of young people with statements who intend to leave school and access post-16 education or training. From commencement in 2013 there will be functions relating to raising the participation age, such as the duty to promote fulfilment of the duty to participate in clause 10. Clause 12 imposes the duty to make arrangements to identify young people who are not participating. There are also duties in clauses 39 and 41 that relate to attendance notices and in clause 42 concerning attendance panels, and so on. There will be a commissioning provision from 2010-11, which will be transferred to local authorities from the Learning and Skills Council.

In respect of clause 10, I am sure that the Committee has noticed that clause 18 specifies:

“In exercising its functions under this Part, a local education authority must have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State.”

That guidance, which would obviously be statutory guidance that the local authority would have to follow, would include such things as an explanation of how these duties differ from those for children of compulsory school age. It would also include links with the Connexions service, the minimum requirements for the tracking service used by Connexions and, crucially, an explanation of the requirements on young people, parents, learning providers and employers and the local authority’s powers and responsibilities for ensuring that those are met. It is there that we will set out the local authority’s duties with regard to young people with special educational needs.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Is there anything in the wording of the amendment that the Minister objects to, and are the Government against placing a responsibility on local authorities to secure a sufficient and appropriate supply of this provision?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

No. As I have set out, I object to the fact that it defines the local authority’s duty more narrowly than we would want. It is vital that the local authority secures a sufficient and appropriate provision of services for young people to ensure that they can fulfil their duty, but I do not want to close it down solely to that, as I have said in my comments. With regard to young people with special educational needs, I argue that raising the participation age will be particularly important in ensuring that they have the opportunities to participate and do so. There is a good instance of us using that as a catalyst—I think that that was the phrase used by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—to secure better provision.

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

My hon. Friend puts forward a persuasive argument on how the legislation needs to go hand in hand with a change of attitude and the catalyst that he described. Does he agree with me that it is particularly important that local authorities take up that message as well and take advantage of the various initiatives that are coming forward from the Government, and does he share the concern that some of the support that was given in the past on a ring-fenced basis will no longer be available?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that local authorities continue to deliver for that section of their population, particularly now that we are in common with the local government White Paper on trusting local authorities to respond more flexibly to the needs of their population by removing ring-fencing. However, we will be introducing other things as well, such as the foundation learning tier, which I have mentioned on a number of occasions, and the Learning and Skills Council’s national strategy for improving opportunities for young people with learning difficulties and disabilities. Obviously, the Learning and Skills Council’s responsibilities will to some extent be transferred to local authorities.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to the realistic opportunities for supported employment project, which is run from Havering college of further and higher education. What has been so surprising about the success of that course is not the success of the students, which we would all have predicted, but the willingness and even enthusiasm of local employers to become part of the scheme. What started as an outreach from the college to persuade employers to give the students a chance has been completely turned on its head, as the employers are now approaching the college to ask if they have any student replacements. That project is an example of good practice that could be disseminated up and down the country.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for continuing to draw our attention of the ROSE project in her constituency. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will not be disappointed that she continues to champion its work, which he described as an exemplar. I am sure that what the hon. Lady says is correct—I have no reason to doubt it. If I ever have an opportunity to visit the project, I shall take it up.

I hope that I have given the Committee enough of an explanation of how we intend the clause to function in its breadth and, through guidance, in its depth.

Mr. Hayes rose—

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Before I sit down more permanently, I shall of course give way to the hon. Gentleman.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

To be clear, is the Minister saying that the amendment would narrow the provisions in the Bill?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Yes.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

But I do not see how the words “sufficient and appropriate” could be described as narrow. They seem to me to be rather broad terms. Are they not inherently flexible?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I repeat for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman what I have already said. The amendment would reduce the duty on the local authority to one of securing appropriate provision. Although that is clearly important, there are other local authority functions that can help to achieve the change to the culture of participation, such as their economic development or careers guidance duties, which I mentioned. Those would be precluded by the amendment. Clause 10 states:

“A local education authority in England must ensure that its functions are...exercised so as to promote the effective participation in education or training”.

The wording, “its functions”, is as wide as that. That is why the measure has breadth.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Does that mean that all other local authority functions must be seen in the light of promoting participation? Will we not have refuse collected because that would not promote effective participation? That is the essence of the Minister’s argument against the amendment. He says that it would narrow every other local authority duty to the one duty, which is an absurd interpretation, just as my tongue-in-cheek remark about clause 10 and refuse collection is absurd.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

For the convenience of the Committee and to save time, I missed out the bracketed text in the clause, which would have dealt with the refuse collection concern. For the sake of clarity, the clause reads:

“A local education authority in England must ensure that its functions are (so far as they are capable of being so exercised) exercised so as to promote the effective participation in education or training”.

I hope that on that basis, the hon. Gentleman and the Committee are satisfied sufficiently.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Listening to this discussion, especially in the context of special educational needs, made me wonder how the measure will work for people with mental health problems. Clearly, not very many people with serious mental health problems get work—as few as 7 per cent. of people with schizophrenia do so. Does the Minister have plans for that in the Bill? We are talking about “sufficient and appropriate” provision, so now might be a suitable time to comment on that point. Has the Minister thought about how young people with mental health needs can be helped into work?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As I have sought to clarify for the Committee at least every time that we have met, we need to ensure that the opportunities attached to the duty and the galvanising of the system that the duty will create apply to every young person, regardless of their circumstances and needs, including people with mental health difficulties. We signalled in the children’s plan that we are concerned about how well child and adolescent mental health services join up with other services. We will look this year at how we can sharpen CAMHS up. Local authorities and their strategic partners in their localities should ensure that such individuals get sufficient support for them to be able to move into appropriate forms of education or training.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

One of the reasons why I asked is that CAMHS hand over to adult services at different ages in different parts of the country. In some areas, the handover is at 16. The Minister will need to ensure that the measure works for those who have mental health problems.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I shall certainly bear in mind the consistency of the arrangements. We will look at those between now and when the raising of the participation age elements of the Bill come into effect.

I hope that I have given the Committee enough information and that the hon. Member for Yeovil thinks it sufficient to withdraw his amendment. At best, he tends to be mildly reassured. I shall be interested to know at what measure of reassurance I have managed to pitch it on this occasion.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I have once been totally reassured by the Minister. I am usually moderately or mildly reassured, but on this occasion I do not feel reassured at all. He has attempted to stamp his ministerial boots on my amendment by suggesting that it would weaken the duties in the Bill and that he is worried that local authorities could not do all the things that they could under clause 10. However, I feel that he rather underlined the weakness of his argument when he cited parts of clause 10 in his response. Let us remind ourselves how vague is the wording that my amendment would remove:

“A local education authority in England must ensure that its functions are (so far as they are capable of being so exercised) exercised so as to promote the effective participation in education or training of persons belonging to its area”.

That is pretty weak and vague. It talks about the generality of local authorities’ responsibilities, but it does not place a duty on local authorities to

“secure a sufficient and appropriate supply of provision”,

which is what amendment No. 165 would require. The Minister said that he had no objection to that duty being in the Bill. I see no reason why he should have a problem with those much firmer words.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I probably should have made it clear that the Learning and Skills Council has such a duty now. We signalled that we will legislate—perhaps during the next Session—on transfers from the LSC to local authorities, but under section 2 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, the council has a duty to ensure learning provision for 16 to 19-year-olds. In particular, section 2(1) states that the

“Council must secure the provision of proper facilities for”

education, training and so on. It therefore sets out many of things that he is seeking. In correspondence with us, the Special Education Consortium sought reassurance that those duties incumbent on the LSC will be transferred to local authorities.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

That was very helpful and I shall return to it in a moment.

To finish my earlier points, I think that the Minister was saying that he does not want to displace the existing wording with the new, much clearer and firmer, wording because of the various other duties on local authorities. He cited economic development departments and so on, although it is not entirely clear how effective and powerful the clause will be in relation to those other duties. Then he cited various other clauses under which duties are placed on local authorities, such as clause 54. He also mentioned Connexions and statementing. However, our amendment would not remove any of those requirements under later clauses. It would be an addition and provide a stronger and firmer commitment to

“secure a sufficient and appropriate supply of provision”,

and ensure that that is not restrained to education and training only.

I am inclined to press my amendment to a Division, unless the Minister can reassure us that he is prepared to return and place that duty in the Bill—after all, he said today that he does not disagree with the wording—or provide the reassurance, in clear and unambiguous terms, sought by the Special Education Consortium. I shall make it clear what that would require. In its representation, from which I quoted earlier, the consortium said that it

“recognised that these duties would require the transfer of responsibilities from the Learning and Skills Council to local authorities requiring further legislation.”

It said that it would welcome a commitment from the Minister that when the Government introduces legislative proposals they will include a duty on local authorities, which is the first point, to secure sufficient and appropriate provision that those words are important, which is the second point. The third point is that sufficient and appropriate provision must relate to not only education and training, but to provision in its widest sense. If the Minister feels that he is in a position to indicate that the legislation would include a duty, it should be in the form of those words: “sufficient and appropriate...provision”. Such a measure should not simply be constrained to education and training. It would be helpful if the Minister could address that, as it would not then be necessary to press the amendment to a Division.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I have no wish to divide the Committee unnecessarily. If it helps the hon. Gentleman, we indicated in July last year that, in future, local authorities will have responsibility for funding and commissioning 16-to-19 provision. We will issue proposals for consultation shortly, but our intention is that the provisions in section 2 of the 2000 Act, which places a duty on the Learning and Skills Council to secure learning provision for 16 to 19-year-olds, will transfer to local authorities. If I can beg the patience of the Committee, the relevant sections of the 2000 Act that we seek to transfer include

“The Council must secure the provision of proper facilities for—

(a) education (other than higher education) suitable to the requirements of persons who are above compulsory school age but have not attained the age of 19,

(b) training suitable to the requirements of such persons,

(c) organised leisure-time occupation connected with such education, and

(d) organised leisure-time occupation connected with such training.”

Those are not the specific words that the hon. Gentleman wants, but they are sufficient to reassure the Special Education Consortium. I am pleased to be able to satisfy the consortium, even if the measure is only mildly, moderately or not at all comforting to the hon. Gentleman.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I like to be a man who is easily satisfied and the Minister has gone a long way to doing that. However, an element of uncertainty hangs in the air so I would like to press the amendment to a Division. I hope that as the Bill goes forward, the Minister will decide to introduce his own amendments to clarify the Government’s acceptance of this duty.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 10, page 5, line 36, at end add—

‘(2) In exercising its functions in subsection (1), a local authority must ensure that it promotes the effective participation of persons belonging to its area to whom this Part applies and who have special educational needs.’.

This amendment also deals with issues about provision in respect of young people with special educational needs. What is the reason for the amendment? There is currently a lack of clarity about who is responsible for ensuring transition to post-16 education and training for SEN students. The Green Paper “Raising Expectations: Staying in Education and Training Post-16”, states:

“We must ensure that there is appropriate provision and support in place to enable those with Special Educational Needs (SEN) to continue in learning. This can be a particular issue at the point of transition. The system of support that has been in place stops when the young person leaves school and sometimes there can be a gap before new arrangements are made in the post-16 provider they transfer to.”

The Green Paper says that the Learning and Skills Council will consult on this issue, but it has no direct responsibility for school-college transition—a point to which the Minister may wish to respond. That responsibility lies with Connexions, as the hon. Gentleman implied in a previous debate when he was trying to persuade us that appropriate and sufficient provision was somehow narrower and weaker than effective participation—curious argument that I did not entirely follow and clearly did not support.

The Connexions service begins with the section 140 assessment and, where appropriate, a special educational needs transition review. Under the Bill, responsibility for Connexions transfers to local authorities and the amendment provides for local authorities to have a specific obligation to ensure effective participation on the part of SEN students. Essentially, it would further strengthen the circumstances surrounding those young people with special educational needs against a background in which we know that they often do not get the chances that they warrant. I hope that on that basis the Minister will accept the amendment, and we can deal with these matters very briefly.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I will struggle to add anything to the previous debate, as we are setting out to ensure that all young people have the opportunity to participate and be engaged in education or training. Clause 10 puts the duty on local authorities to promote participation for all 16 and 17-year-olds, including those with special educational needs. It will transfer commissioning responsibilities from the Learning and Skills Council to local authorities, which will have a responsibility all the way through to 19. It is precisely to capture the needs of vulnerable young people, especially in respect of the transition, that we want to bring those responsibilities up to the age of 19 into the remit of local authorities.

There is little more I can say to satisfy the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Perhaps I can help the Minister. He can say a great deal more, specifically about transition arrangements. He should be able to speak about that for hours.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As I said, we have the transfer of responsibility to local authorities from the Learning and Skills Council. Section 140 of the 2000 Act becomes, in effect, clause 65 of this Bill, which gives responsibility for section 140 assessments to local authorities. That will help transition because local authorities that currently have responsibility pre-16 will now also have responsibility post-16. We are consulting on the responsibility for provision and the transfer to local authorities so that transition, for the important reasons given by the hon. Gentleman, can be smoothed as part of the local authority’s duty under clause 10 to promote participation for all 16 and 17-year-olds.

Although I have not spoken at great length in response to the interesting points that the hon. Gentleman made, I hope that what I said is sufficient for him to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am not entirely satisfied. I do not want to over-egg this pudding. The hon. Member for Yeovil was unpersuaded by the Minister’s argument.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Does my hon. Friend agree that participation rates among this group of students are likely to be high? They are certainly not difficult to reach. So many of them would otherwise be condemned to a life of inactivity and boredom that they, more than perhaps any other section of the 10 per cent. that we are trying to reach, will welcome these opportunities. Having said that, there will be huge cost implications in making provision for them.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Yes. My hon. Friend is right. I described two challenges earlier: the challenge of persuading young people that they had the opportunity to fulfil their potential and the challenge to employers in persuading them to engage with young people. My hon. Friend is right to point out also that once that process has begun, it accelerates rapidly. Once employers know what can be done, they want to do more. The ROSE project makes that case very powerfully. Once young people have opportunities presented to them, I think that they will accept them with enthusiasm, for the sort of reasons that she gave. That does not make it any less challenging. That is why the amendment strengthens the Bill.

I am surprised that the Minister finds the proposal alarming. The historical record of helping people with disabilities and special educational needs is not an altogether glowing one. I do not speak of this Government; I speak Governments per se. It is not as if we could say with confidence that all young people with disabilities and special educational needs are getting what they are due. The reason for some indignation in my tone is that I could not sanction—I do not suggest that the Minister is guilty of this—any complacency in this regard. As a nation we have a patchy record in special educational needs provision and the treatment of disabled people in employment and learning opportunities. That is not a partisan matter, but it is a matter of real concern to members of the Committee and the House.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am sorry if I gave any impression of complacency. We know there is a strong correlation between not being in education or training and other risk factors such as 16 to 19-year-olds with learning difficulties and disabilities. That is why we are currently investing £19 million in a transition support programme for young people with special educational needs. That is why the Learning and Skills Council has been consulting on changes to SEN provision in FE and workplace-based learning, post 16, following the recommendation of the Little review that it should develop a national strategy for the collaborative delivery of provision for this group of learners. My only criticism of the amendment is that it is superfluous. The duty defined in the clause already allows for exactly what the amendment identifies, which I agree is necessary. I hope, on that basis, that the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment rather than press it to a Division.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The amendment builds into the Bill a specific obligation. The Minister has repeated what he said in the debate on the last amendment: that the duty to ensure effective participation is sufficient. My judgment is that we need to, to use a word that he is fond of using, galvanise the system. When he says galvanise I think he really means catalyse. To galvanise means to copper-bottom something and introducing a catalyst is to give it a boost. However, for the sake of argument, let us use galvanise. We need to galvanise this aspect of the Bill’s provisions because of our doubts, which are born of our understanding and experience of the historical treatment of disabled people and particularly those with special educational needs.

As the hon. Member for Yeovil argued in respect of the previous amendment, I think, that the more insistent that we can be and the Bill can be on these matters, the better. We must not be found wanting in any way, shape or form when it comes to people who are the most challenged. The mark of a civilised society is how it deals with those who are least fortunate. I will not stint from making the case on behalf of those people, in this Committee or elsewhere. If I sound uncharacteristically intemperate, it is only because of my enthusiasm and my fierceness in defence of the gentle.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

We share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for specifying provision in respect of people with learning difficulties. That is why we have a whole clause—clause 65—dealing with assessment for people with learning difficulties. That is why Connexions and local authorities will continue to offer support to young people with learning difficulties until their 25th birthday. However, I would argue that the amendment is superfluous. On the basis of the commitment that I have offered the hon. Gentleman with regard to these young people, I hope that he will not press the amendment to a Division.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not doubt the Minister’s integrity on this matter. I would not want to suggest that there are doubts about it. I think that this matter can unite the Committee, as it unites the House. As I said, I do not think that this is a partisan matter.

To put it bluntly, However, I think that the more demanding we can be in respect of the interests of young people with special educational needs, the better. Having been involved with and interested in these matters for more than 20 years, as a county councillor and as an MP, I will take a lot of persuading that any but the most demanding provisions are likely to yield consistently high-quality provision for people with special educational needs.

To that end, I am minded to press the amendment. It might not be perfectly worded because we are imperfect creatures who have fallen from a state of grace. Therefore, it may be that the Minister, if and when we do press it, reflects on it over time to see whether the Government can come back at a later stage of our considerations with a renewed enthusiasm for strengthening the Bill in the way that the hon. Member for Yeovil and I have articulated. I would therefore love—perhaps love is too strong. I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I would like to add a word of support for my hon. Friend. For those with mental health problems, there is a quality of provision that could be available that is not available at present. The Minister might find it of interest if I explain the sort of thing that I have in mind.

In Southend, Rethink Severe Mental Illness has an employment agency on the top floor of a building. Below it is a pet supplies shop and at the back of the building is a warehouse. The organisation trains people with mental health problems upstairs in the employment agency and then starts them on retail in the pet supplies shop. If that goes well, so be it; if it does not, they are given an opportunity in the warehouse. Once they have the frame of mind and the discipline needed for work, they are given placements at businesses in the community, using the same sort of approach that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster talked about in relation to other groups.

Specialist provision such as that, provided by charities or voluntary bodies, is incredibly helpful for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Is there provision in the Bill to put a duty on local authorities to co-operate and consult with charities and voluntary bodies of that sort, to ensure that the sort of provision that is made is not just a college place, which might not be suitable, or a rather feeble work placement, but something solid and sufficient for this sort of group? I support the amendment not because I think that the wording is right, but because I hope that it will galvanise the system not just for the able-bodied and those who are fortunate, but for some of the most vulnerable people in our society—not just those who cannot read, write and add up, but those who have mental health problems.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Committee once more on this interesting amendment. I have little to add but, in response to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, may I draw his attention to clause 69, which is headed, “Co-operation as regards provision of 14-19 education and training”, and states that

“arrangements made by a children’s services authority in England...must include arrangements within subsection (2) or (3)”.

Subsection (2)(c) applies to

“other persons and bodies (of any nature) who exercise functions, or engage in activities, relevant to the provision of 14-19 education or training in the authority’s area.”

I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman that some thought has been given to co-operation between local authorities and others who are capable of support in that area.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 84, in clause 10, page 5, line 36, at end add—

‘(2) Each local authority shall conduct an annual audit into the sufficiency and diversity of educational provision to assess its adequacy for fulfilling its functions in subsection (1).’.

This amendment, too, relates to the sufficiency of provision. I want to refer to comments by my hon. Friends the Members for Upminster and for South Holland and The Deepings about the ROSE project. I responded to the invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster to visit that project, which is run by Havering College of further and higher education. I saw a young woman with severe learning difficulties who was engaged in the project at a branch of Sainsbury’s in the Brewery retail park at Romford. It was inspiring to see her at work, because the challenge of filling shelves was developing her intellect. She was developing in other areas as well, and in time, she would be able to take a bus from home to work by herself. That was absolutely inspiring, but what was particularly impressive was the enthusiasm of the manager of that branch of Sainsbury’s. I met other employers, too, including a franchisee who ran several McDonald’s branches in the area, and was determined to invite more ROSE project participants to do some of the simpler jobs in his franchises. It is a wonderful scheme and I wish them all the best.

Clause 10 is the key clause in the Bill. It imposes a duty on local authorities to promote participation in education and training. In theory, that should mean that local authorities have a duty to ensure that there is sufficient educational provision to help young people to fulfil their duty to participate. That was the essence of the debate on the previous two amendments. Although there are other duty provisions about support services in the Bill, and other duties elsewhere in legislation generally about the provision of education, there is no specific duty linking the provision of educational facilities with the duty of all young people to participate.

There is a danger, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said in relation to the previous amendment, pf complacency. A local authority might take the view that its education and training provision is just fine, and it will focus on exercising its duty under clause 10 by monitoring 16 and 17-year-olds and pursuing penalties: it will concentrate on the second part of the sentence in clause 10, rather than the first part. I remember the director of education in the local education authority in my constituency telling me that there were no weak schools in his area only a month before two comprehensive schools were put into special measures. Either he did not know what was going on in his area, or he has very low standards regarding adequate provision in that area.

Amendment no. 84 would add to clause 10 a requirement that each local authority should

“conduct an annual audit into the sufficiency and diversity of educational provision in order to assess its adequacy for fulfilling its functions”

when promoting greater participation. The words, “sufficiency and diversity”, were proposed by Barnardo’s, which points out that the 10 per cent. of 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in education, training or work—“ETWs” is my new mnemonic, which is more cumbersome than “NEETs”—require provision that is not simply more of the same. It is not just Barnardo’s that has raised concerns. Martin Ward, the deputy general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, told the Committee that

“we will indeed have a larger number of young people for whom it will be difficult to provide the sort of support, per head, that they will need and deserve.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 61, Q154.]

Sue Dutton, the acting chief executive of the Association of Colleges told us:

“We recognise that there will have to be some transformations in the way that colleges currently operate, given the new arrangements.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 33, Q85.]

She also said:

“There will be, and are, occasions when colleges cannot fulfil the personalised service that they would like to.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 31, Q79.]

Similarly, in its briefing, TreeHouse made its concern about the quality of provisions available in colleges for vulnerable young people very clear. It called for further clauses to

“ensure there are appropriate supports for young people with autism and SEN to stay on...as well as reliable monitoring of the supports.”

The Association of School and College Leaders, too, referred to the difficulties facing colleges:

“Re-engaging the last 10 per cent. of young people is a huge challenge that will not be achieved cheaply.”

The Royal National Institute for Deaf People said:

“We would like to see more duties on LEAs to ensure that they provide sufficient and appropriate provision for pupils with SEN”

If we impose a duty on young people of 16 and 17 to participate in education and training, the people whom this duty is most likely to affect—the 16 and 17-year-olds who would not have been going on to further or higher education or a job with training—are likely to have a wider range of needs than the rest of the population of that age. It seems right therefore to impose a duty on local authorities, as part of the requirement to promote participation under clause 10, to look at themselves annually to ensure that the young people on whom this legislation is most likely to impact are catered for by the education and training provision in the local authority area. Amendment No. 84 seeks to do that, and it guards against the public sector’s tendency to be complacent about the quality of services provided.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I shall seek to address the amendment directly, and not be distracted by new mnemonics for NEETs such as NETWAs and NOTWETs—there are all manner of things we could discuss if we were so minded. The Learning and Skills Council has a duty to ensure 16-to-19 provision. That role includes auditing the provision available in an area, assessing demand from young people, and planning provision to meet that demand. It is clear that the LSC takes its duties very seriously in that regard, and so do local authorities regarding the pre-16 age group. In June last year, we announced that in future the funding and responsibility 16-to-19 provision would be transferred from the LSC to local authorities. In one of our evidence-taking sessions, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services said that

“we need to look very coldly and calmly at the provision being made, matching that to the needs of the economy in consultation with employers and employers’ organisations in order to commission, to recomission and, in some cases, to decommission provision to ensure that what we have matches what is needed.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2008; c. 79, Q182.]

The association clearly takes its responsibilities seriously in that regard. However, the fact that the LSC’s duty will be transferred, means that in the future auditing provision will become the role of the local authority.

In many ways, we agree with both the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and Barnardo’s about the importance of that audit. However, it does not make sense to put the duty on local authorities before we have legislated and make them responsible for commissioning the provision—that would put them in a difficult position and we have not even consulted on the best ways of making that transfer. We have always said that we could not require all young people to participate until we believe that there is a suitable route available for everyone in every area of the country. That is why we are not raising the participation age until 2013, when the national entitlement to the new diplomas and the apprenticeship guarantee will be in place, and the foundation learning tier for provision at entry and level 1 will be established. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that we must go through an important sequencing to deliver by 2013. The auditing that he requires will, by that time, have been put in place by future legislation.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am more than moderately—perhaps even comfortably—assured by the Minister’s response. On the basis of his assurance that the matters will be tackled and legislated upon once the transfer from the LSC is complete, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 148, in clause 10, page 5, line 36, at end insert—

‘(2) In subsection (2) of section 47 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 (Determination of school’s budget share), after paragraph (g) insert—

“(h) requiring local education authorities to have regard, in determining the resources required for each school and college maintained by them, to the duty imposed on such authorities by section 10 of the Education and Skills Act 2008.”’.

The amendment was inspired by the National Union of Teachers—as so much is. We share its concern about ensuring that there are sufficient resources in place for schools to provide for, and meet, the needs of the 16 and 17-year-olds to whom the duty to participate applies. The Government’s Green Paper says at paragraph 4.37 that

“our modelling suggests the majority of additional learners would be based mainly in the FE sector, although some would be in schools.”

In his evidence, the Minister said in response to his hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield:

“Getting to 100 per cent. averages out at about 100 learners per local authority, or about 50 per cohort.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2008; c. 217, Q502.]

There are 150 local authorities, so I multiplied 100 by 150 by adding two zeros to 150—it is a formulaic method of multiplication that has served me well throughout my life, including 13 years as an accountant with KPMG—which comes to 15,000 extra students. The Government’s Green Paper says, at paragraph 4.43

“We estimate that if we introduce compulsory participation to age 17 in 2013 there will be around 5,000 more 16 and 17 year olds in schools that year than there will be next year (the 07/08 academic year), and in 2015, when the age would be raised to 18, there will be around 15,000 more in schools than in 07/08. All of this growth is accounted for by the already planned growth in Academies, most of which will have sixth forms.”

That makes 20,000 more school places in sixth forms. Moving on to colleges, the Green Paper says at paragraph 4.45

“And in relation to FE we estimate that if we were to introduce compulsory participation to 17 in 2013, 13,000 additional places would be needed compared to next academic year (07/08), and then on raising the age to 18 in 2015, another 31,000 more would be needed on top of that.”

That is 13,000 plus 31,000, which means 44,000 more college places.

With regard to new full-time education, the Government predict 20,000 more places in schools and 44,000 more college places. That is 64,000 places in total, of which just under a third would be in schools. When the Government imply that the majority of the new provision will be in FE colleges, they are technically correct, but I think that most people implicitly understand that few of those places would be in schools, because the Government keep emphasising that the Bill is not about raising the school leaving age to 18.

The final part of the jigsaw is the number of 16 and 17-year-olds in work-based learning. According to figure 4.3 on page 31 of the Green Paper, there was an increase in that total from 97,000 in 2007-08 to 141,000 in 2015-16, which is an increase of 44,000. If one adds together the 20,000 school places, the 54,000 college places and the 44,000 work-based learning places, one reaches 128,000, which is just over 10 per cent. of the 16 and 17-year-old cohort and therefore about right. My concern is that 64,000 new college places means 426 places per local authority and 133 school places per local authority, which makes 559 student places per local authority, rather than the 100 referred to by the Minister. I am sure that I have misunderstood either some of those numbers or the Minister’s answer to his hon. Friend’s question, so it would be helpful if he clarified the position.

That leads me on to the question posed by Professor Alison Wolf on page 16 of her book, “Diminished Returns”, in which she says that

“while the Department expects very few of the ‘new’ participants to be taking A-levels, the economic benefits analysis provides for 27 per cent. of the additional 16-year-olds and 34 per cent. of that additional 17-year-olds to do so (with another 13 per cent. of each doing GCSEs.)”

She queries that assumption, because she believes that it exaggerates the economic benefits of the policy, as A-levels bring with them a higher level of economic benefit than other qualifications. She makes points out that

“we know from a variety of...sources that those who are realistically able to take A-levels almost universally do so already.”

It would be helpful if the Minister told the Committee how many of the new 10 per cent. of participants he expects to study A-levels in 2015 as a result of the new duty to participate under the Bill. It is an important question, because it goes to the root both of the economic analysis of the policy and of the likely costs that schools would be expected to incur. That is why the amendment would require local authorities to take into account the new duties imposed by clause 10 in determining the allocation of school budgets.

The NUT’s concerns were shared by the Association of School and College Leaders and the Association of Colleges. Brian Lightman, the president of the ASCL, told the Committee:

“There are certainly additional costs. I think it would be very wrong and naive to assume that you could do this on the cheap, and I do not think that would be practical.”

He also said that

“you are going to need additional staff who can offer specialised support. For example...a youth support worker who provides specialised counselling and mentoring to young people.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 64, Q161.]

Martin Ward, the deputy general secretary of the ASCL, referred to the hardest-to-reach of the 10 per cent. cohort, and said that

“it is not going to be cheap because they are going to need extra support.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 64, Q161.]

Finally, Sue Dutton, the acting chief executive of the Association of Colleges told the Committee:

“There will be extra costs in work force related matters. If you offer a more personalised service to a more difficult cohort of learners, it inevitably must come at a higher price.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008; c. 33, Q86.]

An amendment that simply requires local authorities to have regard to the duties imposed on schools by this legislation when they determine budgets is therefore sensible.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

There is a straightforward way in which to address the amendment which is not unrelated to how I addressed the previous one, but to be helpful I shall deal briefly with some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton.

As for what I said in evidence, having reread the transcript I accept that there is a danger that it would be misleading because I omitted to say that the average of 50 places per cohort per local authority applies only to schools. The hon. Gentleman’s maths is correct that that would become about 15,000 more 16 and 17-year-olds in 2015 than there are this year. In FE in 2013, we estimate that 13,000 additional places will be needed compared with this year and, in 2015, another 31,000 places will be needed. I hope that I have been helpful.

The substantial point remains that the total number of 16 and 17-year-olds in each year group decreases after 2007-08. Although the proportion of young people will increase significantly, the increase in actual numbers will not be that large What I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield about now being an opportune time to pursue such a measure remains true.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Does that mean that the article that the Minister will remember from T he Times Educational Supplement last November, which said that his Department needed to be build 17 new colleges, was not right and that it would be possible to manage with existing numbers? What is his plan?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I do not think that we need to build all those new colleges. They certainly do not need to be built overnight or between now and 2015. I have just said that, in FE in 2013, we estimate that 13,000 additional places will be needed compared with this year, and in 2015 another 31,000 places will be needed. In my reckoning, that does not bring to mind that number of colleges. We have not averaged it out throughout local authorities by dividing by 150 because colleges do not tend to relate in the same way to local authorities. Nevertheless, the current capacity of colleges in FE spread throughout the country can cope with the numbers. Obviously, some capital commitments in FE will go towards increasing the capacity.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Is it the Government’s intention that some of the extra demand will be soaked up by encouraging more schools to have sixth form provision?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

We expect about 15,000 more 16 and 17-year-olds in school in 2015, so the provision of post-16 sixth forms will require a modest expansion. However, as I set out in evidence, that will be an average per local authority of 50 per cohort. That is extremely modest, and I do not anticipate swathes of new sixth forms or sixth form colleges cropping up throughout the country which we would have to fund.

On the slightly complicated issue of the proportion of additional participants who might be doing A-levels, we have calculated the figures on some of our assumptions of economic benefit by looking at the level of qualification that non-participants achieved at the point at which they stopped participating and what individuals with a similar level of qualification are going on to study. On that basis, about one fifth of 16-year-olds and one quarter of 17-year-olds have reached level 2 at the point of leaving school, when they do not participate. The vast majority—83 per cent.—of those 16 and 17-year-olds who reach level 2 opt to do A-levels, but they are not the only ones who do so. Among 16 and 17-year-olds leaving school with no qualifications, 11 per cent. go on to do A-levels, probably with extra support to reach that level. Similarly, among the 16 and 17-year-olds leaving school with below level 2 qualifications, 23 per cent. make the leap to A-levels. On the basis of that level of prior attainment for non-participants, we have been able to assume that 31 per cent. would go on to do A-levels.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Presumably, the one fifth of 16-year-olds and one quarter of 17-year-olds who go on to do A-levels after they leave school, do that without being compelled to by legislation. Therefore, they are likely to be more motivated, and perhaps more able, than the 10 per cent. of the cohort that we are trying to address in the legislation. Why does the Minister assume that the same proportions of this 10 per cent. will pursue these qualifications as a result of the legislation? That is a cumbersome and long way of asking a simple question. Are those people leaving school at 16 and 17 to go on to sixth form college, and do they therefore count as leaving school? Or have they left school in a more definitive way, and returned to education later on?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

We needed a consistent basis on which to predict future qualification choices, and it was felt that prior attainment provided that, and it is evidence-based. I would certainly argue that this 10 per cent. cohort would be less able. If we know that one fifth of 16-year-olds and one quarter of 17-year-olds who are not participating have achieved level 2, we know that they are of the same ability as other people who have achieved level 2 who are participating. They are certainly capable of going on to do A-levels.

We know that A-levels are deemed to be a strong choice for people who stay on. If we can motivate them by whatever means to carry on in education or training, we think that it is fair to make some assumptions on the basis of the prior attainment of people who are participating.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is a curious argument, because it presumes that all those who leave at 16 would, if compelled to stay on, welcome that compulsion. Some people who leave school at 16 want to do so. A measure of their attainment at 16 is not the same thing as a measure of their desire to continue learning, is it?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Either I did not get the point or I was having a Proustian moment of reflection. Would the hon. Gentleman like to ask it again?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I shall explain more simply. Some of the people who currently leave at 16, who will be compelled under the Bill to stay on, leave because they face all kinds of challenges and difficulties. For all sorts of peer group and perhaps family reasons they do not stay on, but would rather like to, given a reasonable amount of encouragement.

Other people who leave at 16 do so because they want to get out and do something else. Differentiating between those groups is critical to the modelling described by the Minister, because the assumption that underpins it is that prior attainment is more significant than desire.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I accept that the modelling is predicated more on ability than motivation, if that is the hon. Gentleman’s point. But we do not have any better data on which to model. Anything else would be, to use Alison Wolf’s phrase, “a hunch”.

The reality is, before we get too preoccupied by the matter, that the change in the assumption makes very little difference to the overall economic benefit. We have looked at various other ways that are more hunch-like and we did not see massive differences to the economic benefit. Certainly, they would pass the Treasury prescription on legislation, even if we assume that all leavers went on to do vocational qualifications or GCSEs. I hope that that answer satisfies hon. Members.

The straight answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is, obviously, that we do not know how many people will go on to do A-levels. They will have a whole new set of qualification choices by then, but to satisfy the perfectly legitimate requirements of Parliament for us to conduct an impact assessment, we have made some assumptions based on what we know. There are many known unknowns and unknown unknowns that we have to grapple with as we gaze into the crystal ball.

When determining the resources required by schools and colleges, we expect that local authorities will have regard to their duty to promote participation, as they will have regard to all of their duties. The amendment makes assumptions about how the funding system will operate when the transfer of resources from the Learning and Skills Council to local authorities is implemented from 2010-11. That is premature, given that the details of the new funding system will be subject to consultation in the spring. These changes should be implemented from the academic year 2010-11, well before plans to raise the participation age, and they will fundamentally change the funding system. Those changes will require primary legislation, which we will bring before the House in due course, including amendments to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. It would be premature to make detailed alterations of primary legislation now, before that comes into place. Yet again, for the sake of proper sequencing, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

On the last point, I take on board the Minister’s argument, as I did on the previous amendment, and I will withdraw the amendment.

On the substance of the debate, the Minister overestimates the benefits. If the economic benefits have been calculated on the assumption that 27 per cent. of 16-year-olds and 34 per cent.—a third—of 17-year-olds will take A-levels, and if Alison Wolf believes that that assumption would exaggerate the benefits quite substantially, it would be interesting, as the hon. Member for Yeovil said, to call back Professor Wolf to address those points, given the new information and arguments that have been put to us. She says in her pamphlet:

“we know from a variety of...sources that those who are realistically able to take A-levels almost universally do so already.”

The Minister also underestimates the costs. During the evidence-taking sessions the hon. Member for Sedgefield asked:

“do you think you will have enough suitable people by 2013 and 2015 for all the young people who will come on stream then?”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2008; c. 217, Q502.]

The answer was based on 100 per cohort—I accept that that related to schools only—but we are actually talking about 133 school places per authority and 426 college places per local authority. Those are substantial numbers, and I wonder whether the Government have underestimated the implications for those institutions. I have made that point during the debate, so the Minister need not respond again now, but having tested the arguments and brought these issues to the attention of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I notice the hon. Member for Yeovil shifting in his seat. I was going to say to members of the Committee that I am of the view that the germane matters contained in the clause have been thoroughly considered and I am not, therefore, minded to facilitate a clause stand part debate. Simply because I am not psychic and cannot anticipate precisely what the hon. Member for Yeovil is going to say, I am willing to allow him briefly to say it. I hope that the Committee understands why I propose to proceed in that way.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I understand your concern to not go back over other ground, Mr. Bercow. I want to raise a fresh issue that is relevant to the clause and to ask whether it would be reasonable to ask the Minister to respond briefly.

The clause deals with local authority responsibilities in relation to helping young people to be in education, training, and employment with education and training. I want to ask whether any duties will be placed on local authorities in relation to financial support for young people, which is something that we have not considered so far. I cannot see another point in the Bill on which there will be an opportunity to discuss this issue directly.

Some outside organisations have raised concerns about the lack of any specific detail in the Bill on the future of the educational maintenance allowance and the provision of support for fees. We assume that all the courses that we are talking about will be exempt. Later in the Bill, there is provision to deal with the cost of books, equipment and materials for 19-year-olds and above. That could be relevant for people whose parents are not willing to support them financially beyond the age of 16. Issues have been raised about whether local authorities will have hardship grants to deal with such issues. Presumably, some young people will stay in settings beyond the age of 16 where uniforms are required. There are concerns about financial provision in that area. There are issues about the loss of earnings that might result for some young people from sticking to the duties in the Bill.

The Government have indicated that they will have to look in detail at what responsibilities will fall to them and to local government in relation to the educational maintenance allowance. Its original purpose was to support young people and to galvanise them into staying in education post-16. As a consequence of the compulsion in the Bill, they will have to stay on, but the Government have not indicated how they intend to frame the future of the EMA to allow for the change from volunteerism to compulsion. There has been some hint of significant changes, but no further detail from the Government of which I am aware.

We would like to know not only what thinking there is on these issues, but, in relation to the clause, whether local authorities will have responsibilities to fund any of that support, and whether any duties will be imposed on them.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The EMA is, of course, important. It is referred to in paragraphs 5.39 and 5.40 of the impact assessment, which gives a helpful description of EMAs as

“means tested weekly payments currently made directly to 16-19 year olds in education or unwaged training.”

It is described as a “something for something” incentive. Clearly, there will need to be changes because the EMA was introduced to encourage people to stay in full-time education or training. We are changing the law in that area, so we will have to change the way in which EMAs work to respond to that.

EMAs have been successful in raising participation for 16-year-olds. Between 2003-04 and 2004-05, they increased participation by 3.7 per cent., which is highly significant. EMAs are one of the only things to have worked in addressing the problem NEETs. Given their success, we want them to continue in some form. We will need to look at the structure of financial support to ensure that it continues to be as effective as possible.

Once we have raised the participation age, it will be essential to ensure that financial circumstances are not a barrier to participation. The hon. Member for Yeovil is right about some of the issues, such as learning materials and transport. The EMAs are quite important to some families in securing transport, for example.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

In dealing with how EMAs could change under the new proposals, does the Minister envisage there being the same level of financial support per young person? Who will administer the EMAs?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

At this point—several years off and in another spending period—it is impossible for me to make commitments on what the level will be. Naturally, we will be mindful of the success of EMAs at the current level. I would not envisage that we would be looking to reduce the financial support to the sorts of people who have been receiving EMAs as they are. Indeed, we have been extending EMAs to people on the entry to employment programme. If anything, we are looking to deepen the benefits of EMAs, rather than dilute them.

We will ensure that the financial constraints are not a barrier. As for who will administer the EMAs, they are currently administered on our behalf by the Learning and Skills Council. When we publish consultations on how we will implement the transfer of commissioning from the LSC to local authorities, we will need to give some indication of how they will be administered. At this stage, I am not in a position to be able to give the hon. Gentleman the sort of answer that would even mildly satisfy him on the Laws scale of satisfaction.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Would the clause be justiciable? If I was a person with a special need of some sort or some desire for a particular kind of education, would I be able to sue the council on the basis that it had not exercised its functions to promote my effective participation in education or training?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The hon. Gentleman, as ever, poses a fascinating question around the—what was the word he used?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Justiciability—can one sue?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

On the justiciability of the clause, I would liken it more to the current duties on a local authority to provide schooling. It would be treated in law in a similar way as the justiciability of local authorities in respect of the provision of schooling. That is a good example of the general duties elsewhere in law that are similar to those in the clause. I would expect the courts to deal with them in a similar way.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Bercow, for your patience and to the Minister for his comments. This short debate highlights the fact that there is little bit of a hole in the Bill in relation to the detail of future financial support for young people. There seems to be uncertainty about how the EMA will survive. In the section of the impact assessment to which the Minister referred, there is a comment about the Government looking at how they can strengthen the link of these payments to behaviour and attainment. I am not sure what that means. I did not pick up any response from the Minister about issues of hardship grants and how young people might be helped with costs that previously would fall quite often to their parents, but that their parents might be less willing to engage with post 16.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Learner hardship grants are available separately from EMAs, as I recall. They are slightly more flexible than EMAs, which have a particular point of assessment, and I certainly foresee those continuing. Obviously we could have waited a considerable time and changed the sequence in which we legislated to do this. However, we thought that it was important to put the basic legislation in place to raise the participation age now so that the cohort currently in year 6 goes into secondary school with the expectation that they will carry on learning. Undoubtedly, there are unanswered questions and we have to be upfront about those. One of those is around financial support, but we are committed to ensuring not only that there is an engaging choice of worthwhile learning options, but that there will be financial support where it is needed to enable those learners to participate.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

It is helpful to understand that there are these unanswered questions. We may come back to them later in the proceedings as we continue to scrutinise the Bill.

Clause 11

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I beg to move amendment No. 163, in clause 11, page 6, line 8, at end insert—

‘(e) an Academy,

(f) a city technology college,

(g) a city college for the technology of the arts, and

(h) special schools which are not community or foundation special schools but are for the time being approved by the Secretary of State under section 342 of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56) (approval of special schools).’.

The clause, as stated in the explanatory notes,

“places a new duty on governing bodies of certain institutions in England to promote attendance for the purpose of enabling young people to meet the duty to participate under clause 2.”

As the notes and the detail of the Bill itself confirm, that duty applies simply to community, foundation or voluntary schools, and special schools—as well as to pupil referral units and further education institutions. The LSC has asked for the same duty to be placed on private providers.

Amendment No. 163 is also inspired by the NUT; they are inspiring a lot of amendments among the Opposition parties at this moment. The amendment seeks to explore why a series of other educational institutions have been left out of this particular duty to promote good attendance. The amendment includes within that duty academies, city technology colleges, city technology colleges of the arts and special schools that are not community or foundation schools but are—for the time being—approved by the Secretary of State.

I have no problem with those educational institutions; indeed, I strongly support academies and some of the other educational institutions detailed here. I shall be working very hard to support Lord Adonis and others within the Government who want to defend some of those institutions against the attempt by the Prime Minister and perhaps even the Secretary of State to throttle them gradually. However, I believe that it is sensible for the freedoms that some of these institutions have to be enjoyed by as many schools as possible.

It is also sensible for the strategic oversight of all these educational organisations to operate in the same way. Even within the space of this week, we have seen how the Government seem to be implementing a strategic oversight of educational institutions which differentiate some of the maintained schools, which are already covered by clause 11, and schools in some other categories, such as the ones listed in amendment No. 163, which are institutions which traditionally have a greater degree of freedom.

Yesterday, I received a parliamentary answer regarding the duties that the Government will place on educational institutions in relation to compulsory cookery lessons. It was announced just a few weeks ago that all maintained schools will have to have compulsory cookery lessons, although we know that something like 85 per cent. of them already have these lessons. However, in the answer from the Minister, dated 5 February, we see that these cookery lessons will not be compulsory for academies. That seems to be a good example of the slightly bizarre approach that the Government are taking in allowing freedoms to be available to some educational institutions which are not available to others. This is causing a different strategic oversight of some educational institutions in comparison to others, for no good reason.

The amendment has been stimulated and, to be candid, written by the NUT, and we are pleased to lend our names to it. It lists a series of other educational institutions, which are taken from section 5 of the Education Act 2005. It includes all those educational institutions that are subject to Ofsted inspection. The logic of the amendment is that the duty to promote attendance should be consistent with the susceptibility to inspection.

I encourage the Minister to explain the logic of leaving those institutions outside the duty in clause 11. In what other ways will the duty will be catered for? Presumably, the Government do not intend that those educational establishments will not be obliged to pursue the duty to attend. Will they be doing so through funding agreements? Why should funding agreements be used for that purpose, rather than including them in the Bill? How will the existing academies with their own existing funding agreements be covered by the duty? Will there be any attempt to amend the funding agreements to ensure that the duties in the Bill are part of the duties of academies in the future?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

We currently have 83 academies, 78 are or will be direct providers of post-16 education. From September there will be two city technology colleges and one city college for the technology of the arts. They are in general regulated through their funding agreements rather than through legislation. That is why they are not expressly listed in clause 11. I assure the Committee that academies are required through their funding agreements to have regard to the same guidance as maintained schools on improving behaviour and attendance.

The situation is different for the two CTCs and the one CCTA. They are not required by law to have regard to the same guidance, as they were established as independent institutions with particular freedoms, but they are successful schools with high levels of post-16 participation from committed pupils whose attendance and behaviour are good. I do not think we will have too many problems with those institutions or with academies, where attendance has risen at a much faster rate than nationally.

The final category that would be added by the amendment is that of non-maintained special schools. The hon. Gentleman has cause for some celebration because, having reflected on his amendment, I would say we do need to look further at the case for including that group of schools in clause 11. I will consider whether we might put forward a Government amendment to that effect on Report. I hope in the light of that extraordinary generosity and admission—

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Could the Minister tell me how many such schools there are? It is not one or zero, is it?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The number of non-maintained special schools?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

The Minister said he might table his own amendment to cover one category of educational institution. I was asking him to clarify how many educational institutions fall into the category that he will be allowing for.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

When I know what is included in the amendment that the Government might table, I will know the number. The best estimate I have at the moment is 74. If the total is different when the amendment is tabled, I will inform the House. I hope that in the light of my reasoning and generosity, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

This is the first triumph of this Committee’s proceedings. It is the first time the Government have had to do a massive U-turn. As ever, they prefer to table their own amendment rather than allow this magnificent Laws-NUT amendment to be included in the Bill. I hope that I do not get angry letters from 74 institutions that will now be included in this duty.

I am grateful to hear we have made some ground. I am still a little baffled why it makes sense for such a duty to be administered through an individual funding agreement. It clearly is a strategic duty, so why not have strategic duties operating at a strategic level, rather than have them dealt with individually in the funding agreements?

I thought it was rather odd to say that in a number of the institutions listed in the amendments, there would not be too many problems, because their participation or attendance rates are very high. One could say that a number of maintained schools that will be covered by the clause should be exempt on that basis. I also heard no reassurance about what will happen to the established academies which will not have the duty in their funding agreements. Is it intended to rewrite the funding agreements? Will they be changed retrospectively, or will those academies be exempt from the duty?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I remind the hon. Gentleman that I said that academies are required through their funding agreements to have regard to the same guidance as maintained schools on improving behaviour and attendance. Clearly the guidance for schools will have to reflect the clause in terms of promoting good attendance, so that duty will apply to existing academy agreements.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I think I understand the Minister’s point. Let me give my understanding of what he is saying, and he can stop me if I am getting it wrong. I think he is saying that the established academies that have their own funding agreements will automatically have to have regard to clause 11 because that is implied directly in their funding agreements, so there will be no need to amend them.

Jim Knight indicated assent.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

The Minister is nodding. That gives me some reassurance, but I would still rather not deal with this particular issue through this route. But having managed to persuade the Government to tweak slightly in our direction, I think I had better cut my losses and thank the Minister for his comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

I rise on clause stand part merely to make a brief comment and to put a question to my hon. Friend the Minister. In relation to the exercise of the governing bodies’ functions, the clause is neutral on the range of courses to which the students in the category described should have access. However, the Edge foundation, with which I have worked closely via the all-party skills group and the Skills Commission, and one or two other organisations have raised their concern that some governing bodies, which should already be ensuring that students have access to a range of courses adapted to their interests and needs, favour an academic style of learning over more a more practical or vocational approach. As a result, some young people may be offered a limited choice of options both before and after the age of 16. The organisations make the point, which I thoroughly agree with, that some young people become disaffected because they do not enjoy school and find classes boring or irrelevant. They also make the point about the importance of learning by doing, or practical learning.

With that in mind, if my hon. Friend the Minister does not feel that that is an appropriate subject for an amendment to the Bill—I would understand why—is he able to say what the Government might be able to do, whether through guidance or some other initiative, to ensure that governing bodies, which are required to promote participation, have due regard to the broadest range of courses available?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Certainly, they should have regard to that duty. The clause clearly is just about promoting attendance, but clause 66, to which I refer my hon. Friend, deals with impartial advice of the sort for which Edge is calling. That clause specifically requires schools to give impartial advice. It has been slightly misinterpreted by some sections of the press, the Committee will be amazed to hear, but it is certainly the case that we want to ensure, as Edge has argued, that advice is in the best interests of the learner rather than in the best interests of the organisation giving that advice. I hope that, on that basis, the Committee is happy to agree clause 11.

Clause 12

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Clause 12 is a rather frightening clause. I know that local authorities need to know which children are resident in their area so that they can enforce compulsory education, and I realise that they need data that they can use to promote participation post-16. I also realise that much of those data are already collected by Connexions so it can fulfil its function, However, the wording of the Green Paper is rather alarming in paragraph 7.3, which states:

“In every area of the country, considerable effort is being put into identifying where young people currently are and what they are doing”.

The duty imposed by clause 12, similarly, requires local authorities to

“make arrangements to enable it to establish...the identities of persons belonging to its area ... who are failing to fulfil the duty imposed by section 2.”

Those sorts of powers and duties are always introduced with good intent, but it would be helpful if the Minister, for the record, spelt out the extent to which the duty in the clause is new, why it is necessary and why the clause is needed?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The duty on local authorities is, as I think the hon. Member understands, fundamental. As he says, it is clear that for the local authority to fulfil its duty of promoting participation, and to ensure that everyone benefits from staying on, it will need to know who is not participating and what is being done to re-engage them. That information is necessary so that personal advisers from Connexions can contact the young person and offer them support in finding or accessing provision.

The Connexions service already uses a tracking system, so as far as I am aware, the clause simply restates the existing arrangements, taking into account the transfer of Connexions to local authorities. When Connexions makes the transfer, if the database is not maintained, it will be impossible to track young people and, therefore, to intervene effectively and provide support that is timely and appropriate to their needs. The clause simply strengthens the legal basis for the tracking system, and in so doing, it sets a legal imperative to ensure that, by 2013, local authorities are fully equipped to carry out those functions and to ensure that those young people who are in most need are identified promptly and provided with timely support.

Technically the duty is a new one, but the clause is very similar to section 436A of the Education Act 1996, which deals with pre-16s, so we are only reinforcing an existing system and extending the legal duty from pre-16 to post-16 in line with the Bill. I hope that that is clear enough to enable the Committee to approve the clause.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I shall not detain the Committee long, but we tabled an amendment to delete the clause, so I need at least to register my concerns, which are broadly in line with those expressed by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. The Minister said, quite rightly, that there is a similar duty now covering pre-16s, as one would expect. However, the clause sets out a new duty, which presumably will have large costs associated with it and is completely tied in to the duties regarding compulsion in the Bill. That is why we tabled our amendment to delete the clause, which is one of the parts of the Bill that we oppose.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Yeovil. Given that we are opposed to the concept of compulsion, we wish to divide the Committee on clause stand part.

Clause 13

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I beg to move amendment No. 137, in clause 13, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

‘(1A) Where a local education authority—

(a) itself provides services in exercise of its functions under section 54(1), and

(b) receives a notice under subsection (1) relating to a person to whom this Part applies who belongs to the area of another local education authority,

it must as soon as reasonably practicable give notice to the service provider for the other local education authority of the circumstances notified to it under subsection (1).

(1B) Subsection (1C) applies where, in exercise of its functions under section 54(3)(b), a local education authority makes arrangements with another person (“the provider”) for the provision of services.

(1C) The arrangements must secure that, as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving a notice under subsection (1) relating to a person to whom this Part applies who belongs to the area of another local education authority, the provider gives notice to the service provider for the other local education authority of the circumstances notified to the provider under subsection (1).’.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 138 to 141.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I will move on from my surprise that Opposition Members do not support making the necessary practical arrangements to provide support for post-16 learners and other individuals.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I cannot let the Minister get away with that parody of clause 12. It is not about educational support for young people aged 16 or 17; that comes both after and before clause 12. It is about simply identifying people to whom the Bill applies and putting their names and identities on a database.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am sure, Mr. Bercow, that you wish me to address clause 13 rather than go back to debate clause 12, but clearly I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of clause 12.

The purpose of clause 13 is to ensure that learning providers tell Connexions when a young person drops out of learning. We want that to be straightforward and a light burden on the learning provider. For instance, a large specialist college is likely to take young people from a number of local authorities and that is why we only require them to notify their local Connexions office. In his evidence, the principal of Bedford college said, I think, that he worked with as many as 100 local authorities. Once a young person drops out, the Connexions office where the young person lives is responsible for intervening to provide support. Therefore amendment No. 138 makes it clear that the Connexions service that is notified that a young person has dropped out must ensure that the information is passed on to the Connexions service where the young person lives. Without the amendment it would be possible for a 16 or 17-year-old to drop out of learning and not receive support—at the time when they needed it the most—even though a Connexions office would be aware that they had dropped out. The amendment formalises existing procedures for the operation of the Connexions database and service.

The remaining amendments are technical ones, necessary for the provision to have the desired effect. Amendment No. 138 makes clear the wording that describes whether the local authority provides the Connexions service itself or through arrangements with another body.

Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 make the reference in clause 13 to clause 54 more specific. They refer to particular subsections of clause 54: subsection (1), which is where the local authorities’ duty to provide the Connexions service is set out, and subsection (3)(b), which provides for local authorities to make Connexions services available by providing them themselves or by making arrangements with other parties.

The final amendment, No. 141, makes it clear that “services” in clause 13, line 19, page 7, refers to Connexions services as a whole. I therefore commend the amendments to the Committee.

Clause 14

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 17, in clause 14, page 7, line 29, after ‘authority’, insert

‘provided that the relevant pupil or student has given written consent for the information to be provided.’.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in clause 14, page 7, line 36, at end insert—

‘(3A) Any pupil or student to whom subsection (1) applies shall have the right to examine any relevant information requested by a local authority before that information is provided by the responsible person to the authority.’.

No. 19, in clause 14, page 7, line 36, at end insert—

‘(3A) Any pupil or student to whom subsection (1) applies shall be given the opportunity to correct any relevant information regarded by him as inaccurate, subject to the agreement of the responsible person.

(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), when agreement cannot be reached between the pupil or student and the responsible person the Information Commissioner shall decide what correction, if any, should be made to the relevant information.’.

No. 170, in clause 14, page 7, line 36, at end insert

‘which is relevant to assessing their educational and support needs.’.

No. 18, in clause 14, page 7, line 43, leave out ‘instructed the responsible person not’ and insert

‘not given written consent to the responsible person’.

No. 97, in clause 57, page 30, line 34, at beginning insert

‘Subject to the written consent of the pupil or student,’.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The clause imposes a duty on educational institutions—schools and colleges—to provide information about their students to a local authority if they are requested to do so by that authority. The data sharing provisions raise significant human rights implications, and I focus on those issues in later amendments, particularly amendment No. 42. I alert the Committee to the fact that the issues are of interest to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I say no more than that at this stage.

The hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) wrote to the Minister setting out his concerns, and the Minister responded in his letter of 10 January 2008. The hon. Member for Hendon raised a number of questions, which I will address when we talk about the data sharing provisions in clause 57 and amendment No. 42. As far as the series of amendments is concerned, I want to focus first on the rather innocuous information that clause 14 seeks to obtain: the name, address and date of birth of the student and the student’s parents. Also included in clause 14(3)(c), however, is

“information in the institution’s possession about the pupil or student.”

Such information could relate to the student’s grades, test scores, study problems raised by the student with his or her tutor, personal problems raised by the student or financial issues that the student has. It could relate to the student’s health, behaviour or any other information that the school or college has. Clause 14(4) does of course give the student the right to instruct the school or college not to provide such information, but that amounts to an opt-out approach, rather than an opt-in. In response to a question from the hon. Member for Hove, the Minister said that he had rung Connexions that very morning, and he said about young people’s consent:

“At the point at which they go on to the database at 13, it is done on the basis of presumed parental consent, so parents can not give consent for it to happen, but that is just the very basic data. From then on in, the young person has to give active consent for the data to be shared with other agencies. That is what happens at the moment and when it transfers we do not foresee that changing.”——[Official Report, Education and Skills Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2008; c. 214, Q494.]

That is odd, given that clause 14(4) requires the student to instruct the institution not to supply the information. Thus, if no instruction is received, the college can presumably go ahead and supply the information, notwithstanding the fact that no consent was actively given.

It would help if the Minister clarified his remarks. By “active consent”, did he mean the opt-out approach set out in clause 14(4), which I would not call active consent, or did he mean that the data on the Connexions customer information system database can be divulged to others only with proper active consent from the young people, but that data from educational institutions going on to the Connexions caseload information systems database can be made available by the college on the basis of non-active consent, as set out in clause 14(4)? If the latter, why is the nature of the consent required different?

Amendment No. 17 would require written consent from the student before any information about him or her could be supplied. The college or local authority would actively have to approach the student, inform him or her that information was being requested by the local authority and request from the student written consent for that information to be supplied. The danger of the opt-out approach is that the student will not necessarily know what information has been requested or that he has the right to object to that information being supplied. I suspect that, if not amended, the clause will result in a large amount of personal educational information being supplied to local authorities without students realising it. Given that that information will be used for a totally different purpose from that for which it was made available in the first place, it is important that the safeguard in the amendment be put in place.

The Bill’s approach is in conflict with the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998. For example, one of the key principles of the Act is:

“Personal data should be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.”

If we do not put in place the safeguard that the amendment would provide, we could find that students are reluctant to raise academic and personal problems with tutors lest the information end up in the hands of authorities or other people and their privacy evaporates.

Amendment No. 16 would give a student the right to examine any information held on him by a school or college and requested by the local authority, so that he could correct any inaccuracies. Amendment No. 19 would give a student the right to have that information corrected, subject to the agreement of the school or college. If agreement could not be reached on whether the information was accurate, the matter could be referred to the Information Commissioner for adjudication.

We have to be careful about personal data on us that is held by state-run organisations. People need to be able to check its accuracy, and we need to be sure that the information is secure. The Government’s record on securing our personal data is not good: the Criminal Records Bureau mistakenly labelled 2,700 innocent people as having criminal records; the sex offenders register lost track of 300 hundred offenders; 27,000 criminals, many of them serious, were left off the police national computer; 100,000 innocent children are on the DNA database; 26,000 police-collected samples were mistakenly left off the police national computer; and 500,000 entries were misrecorded. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs lost 25 million personal records, including information about children and people’s bank accounts, and last year there were 2,110 other security breaches by HMRC; the Department for Transport lost 3 million driving licence applications; and the Ministry of Defence left a laptop, containing the details of thousands of people who had expressed an interest in joining the Army, in the back of a car, from where it was stolen.

Again, the Data Protection Act gives people the right to access their personal data, which is important, and the right to correct or destroy inaccurate data. It is important therefore that the Bill is consistent, and in accordance with, the principles of that Act.

Privacy is a concern to the Children’s Rights Alliance, which said that

“extensive measures in the Bill for information sharing, in order to facilitate enforcement of the duty, are a further serious threat to Children's privacy.”

It also conducted a series of focus groups with young people, discussing the issue of information sharing. Its report says:

“There was concern that if children thought adults were going to share information with other people, they would stop confiding in adults altogether. They believed that adults ought to be able to sort out difficulties with children and young people without having to breach their confidence.”

The report includes a quotation from a 17-year-old young woman at the focus group, who said:

“I think the people who are passing information need to consider the consequences of what will happen if they disrespect the child’s wishes...like the child’s not going to confide in them anymore or trust them. Obviously that's going to be bad if they’re in a situation where they’re in danger or they’re self harming...and then they’ve got no one to turn to because they don’t trust anyone”.

On the issue of whether information could be shared with other organisations without the permission of the young person, the report says:

“There was general agreement that it was essential to try to get permission before sharing information, and only break refusal of permission in the most exceptional circumstances. One young man felt that he would be really angry if he found out information had been shared without his permission, even if the adult thought it necessary to share information”.

The Government must also use the right database and computer system. The Association of Colleges says:

“The intention is that local authorities will maintain and improve existing Connexions Caseload Information Systems database”—

the CCIS. The association continues:

“AoC is not satisfied that this database is fit for purpose and believes it will need significant improvement in advance of 2015.”

The Local Government Association, in its briefing, also talks about improving the “accuracy” of the Connexions database.

We also support amendment No. 170, tabled by the hon. Member for Yeovil, which would refine the information that can be supplied to that

“which is relevant to assessing their educational and support needs”.

That must be right. The Bill requires colleges and schools to provide any information in the institution’s possession about the student or pupil, which is far too wide a provision.

The amendments are important, because they would provide legislative protection for the privacy and rights of 16 and 17-year-olds—on which the Bill seriously impinges. Such issues are increasingly important in what is rapidly becoming a surveillance society, and we must always be vigilant about protecting people’s privacy, information and personal data.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Michael Foster.]