Education and Skills Bill

Public Bill Committee, 26 February 2008.

Further written evidence to be reported to the House

Clause 54

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 93, in clause 54, page 29, line 13, leave out ‘services’ and insert

‘information, advice and guidance about education and career choices’.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 41, in clause 54, page 29, line 15, at end insert—

‘(1A) Such services must include the provision of—

(a) generic information, advice and guidance, and

(b) targeted support for young people which takes into account their personal circumstances.’.

No. 94, in clause 54, page 29, line 35, at end add—

‘(6) Services provided under this section shall be known as “Connexions”.’.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr. Bayley, and it is good to be back in Committee. As you can tell from my demeanour, I have been preparing carefully this morning.

The gist of the amendment is that if we are to guide young people in the right direction, we must be explicit about the nature of that guidance. I wonder whether, instead of the clause referring simply to “services”, the nature of the new statutory obligations should be made clearer. In that sense, this is a probing amendment to test the Government’s commitment to and understanding of the need to offer the right range of advice and guidance on what is available to young people.

I tabled the amendment in the context that the Opposition continue to have profound reservations about whether Connexions is the right vehicle to provide the range of advice necessary to assist young people. I do not want to undermine or demean Connexions. It does good work; however, it is asked to do too much good work. An all-age careers service dedicated to advising on “career choices”, as the amendment labels them, that sat alongside Connexions would be a much better vehicle to provide the advice and guidance that is required. I have made that point before and make no apologies for mentioning it again.

I am sure that the Government are considering that point, because it has been made not only by the Opposition, but by many agencies. I hope that in responding to the amendment, the Minister will expound his thinking on how he sees careers advice and guidance in the future. The demands upon the service will be greater, given that it will be dealing with the challenges of the statutory provisions at the heart of the Bill.

An all-age careers service is the vehicle used in other places to deliver such advice and guidance—for example, Scotland has an all-age careers service. Many people in the service believe that the problem with Connexions is that it is a jack of all trades, giving advice on sexual health, lifestyle issues and drug problems, rather than simply on careers, training and related subjects. Careers guidance in other European countries tends to be more systematic than in the UK. It tends to begin much earlier and is geared towards providing detailed information on the skills requirements for particular jobs or professions.

In a joint memorandum on the Bill, all the main organisations involved in careers guidance, including the National Association of Connexions Partners and the Institute of Career Guidance, expressed concern that the new local authority duty under the Bill is “not specific enough”. They go on to say:

“Effective participation requires assistance with choices. Such advice and guidance must be about choices not merely of which learning option to follow, but why—that is, with a clear view of progression beyond 18+ into employment (either directly or via further training or higher education). The key is that choices about the relationship between learning and work—i.e. about career—should drive participation in learning.”

The amendment places a clear duty on local authorities to provide just such services and to adopt just such an approach.

Although I started by saying that the amendment is designed to probe the Minister and test the Government’s thinking, it is also built on our considered and profound doubts about whether the proposed arrangements are sufficiently robust and appropriate to give life to the Bill. Those doubts are supported by a number of the agencies that have given evidence on the Bill. Given that critique, if the Minister resists amendment, I hope that he will range widely in saying why he thinks the amendment is not sufficient and not in line with orthodox thinking, and why his dogmatic concentration on the existing structure is right.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I assumed that the Conservative spokesman would speak to the wider purposes of the clause, which is primarily to do with young people, including young adults who are in the care of local authorities. I thought that the amendment might at least address that aspect. Such young people may, in fact, be attending the National Star College in the Cotswolds, which I visited last year, where many young adults with learning difficulties and other disabilities attend on a residential basis, not only to be given formal education that leads to qualifications but to be taught valuable life skills.

I support the broad intention of the amendment, which seeks to widen the scope of the clause by replacing the phrase

“such services as it considers appropriate”,

with the more specific “information, advice and guidance”. However, will the Minister expand on what services he believes it would be considered appropriate for the local authority to provide, so that we can see whether the amendment is relevant?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Good morning, Mr. Bayley, it is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair. We trust that you had a good week last week, when the Committee was under the excellent stewardship of Mr. Bercow.

Amendment No. 94 would specify that services provided under the clause should be known as “Connexions”. In proposing to amend the clause in that way, I thought that the Opposition were seeking to pay tribute to the success of the Connexions service in winning young people’s support and becoming so widely known. I thought that they wanted to sustain a valued brand that is well known to young people and keep the advantages to authorities of badging services offering information, advice and guidance to young people with that name. I then listened to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and was saddened to learn that he does not hold Connexions in such high regard, but wants to retain the brand anyway. I reassure him and the Committee that we intend to use the power to direct in clause 55, which I am sure that we will come on to fairly soon, to require authorities to do just that.

To answer the hon. Member for Bristol, West regarding the services we envisage being delivered by what will continue to be known as Connexions, we expect it to carry out the services that the current service does, but to do so to the quality standards that we have published.

Turning to amendments Nos. 94 and 41, as the Committee will already be aware from debate on earlier clauses, Connexions delivers generic information, advice and guidance to young people, as well as more specific information and advice on career choices. That will continue when the responsibility is transferred to local authorities. The service Connexions provides is supported by the new IAG quality standards, which have been largely welcomed by local authorities and their partners.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings spoke of his desire for an all-age careers service. He is worried that, given the breadth of the advice that they are required to give, Connexions and its personal advisers are jacks of all trades and masters of none. Obviously, we have to strike a balance between genuine expertise and the ability to offer a joined-up service that can look across the range of issues affecting young people and advise them accordingly. Given the raising of the status of the quality standards—we intend to make them statutory guidance—we believe that we will get the best of both worlds. It is not a question of either/or: we can have personal advisers offering high-quality services and high-quality advice that looks at the range of issues.

I would say to the hon. Gentleman that there is a case for developing an all-age strategy, particularly with the extension of the participation age to 18. The Government are implementing the recommendation in the Leitch report to create a new adult careers service from 2010, and work is in train to development a coherent strategy for careers advice for all ages.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Will the Minister give way?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I will in just a moment. Let me just finish the points I am making.

We should not necessarily have one service catering for all age groups, as different age groups have different needs. The strategy will help to ensure that transitions between services are managed effectively and that common issues such as labour markets and occupational information, contracting and work force development are looked at collectively, where possible. It will also ensure that the responses acknowledge and respect the different concerns and problems of adults and young people.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Will the Minister provide more detailed information on the pilots now being rolled out for the new adult careers service, as they are highly relevant to the issues implicit in the amendments? Secondly, what are the objectives of the pilots? There is some concern that the objectives are unclear and that the pilots are not being tested against any thesis or assumptions. He might like to take this opportunity to correct that misapprehension, if it is such.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to set out more details of the pilots. I fear that I would try your patience, Mr. Bayley, if I were to get too distracted at this point, but if I find an opportunity to address that matter directly as we debate the transfer of Connexions to local authorities, I will return to that issue to inform the Committee as best I can.

Our intention is to raise the status of the quality standards to that of statutory guidance. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to targeted youth support. We expect all authorities to deliver targeted youth support throughout their areas by December this year. That is a challenging but essential aim, and we are working with Government offices, the Training and Development Agency for Schools and local authorities to support that ambitious programme.

The provision of information, advice and guidance and of targeted youth support will be emphasised as a core function of Connexions through the directions that we will issue under clause 55. We intend those directions to set out that local authorities must ensure the provision of reasonable access to a personal adviser for all 13 to 19-year-olds, and 20 to 24-year-olds with learning difficulties or disabilities, to provide them with information, advice, guidance, advocacy and brokerage, including brokering access to targeted youth support services. We believe that those measures are suitable for ensuring a high-quality and consistent approach, while providing councils with local flexibility.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am surprised that the Minister is resisting amendment No. 93, given that the wording is lifted from the foreword to the “Quality Standards for Young People’s Information, Advice and Guidance” issued by his Department. His right hon. Friend the Minister for Children, Young People and Families says in the first paragraph of that foreword:

“In a complex and changing world all young people need access to good quality, comprehensive and impartial Information, Advice and Guidance...They need good IAG to help them make the right learning and career choices”.

I changed “learning” to “education” in the amendment. I am surprised that the Minister does not agree with his right hon. Friend’s wording and accept our amendment.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I do not disagree with the wording or the intention of the amendment. I regard it as unnecessary, because we are going to give the guidance that he just referred to statutory status, as I said twice in my comments. That will fulfil the purposes of the amendments. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister has underestimated the significance of this aspect of the Bill and, indeed, of this group of amendments. At the end of the day, the success of efforts to increase participation will be dependent—as we have argued repeatedly—on inspiring young people with a new thirst for learning. I believe that that learning must, at its heart, have a test of employability: whether it will lead to greater employability for the young person concerned. Much of that will depend on the learning being tailored to particular outcomes, so advice and guidance are critical.

As I said when moving the amendment, I do not want to demean the Connexions service; it does a good job. However, I am not sure that creating extra demands on an unreformed system is tenable. The clarity of what will be stated in the Bill if the amendment is made will be highly significant in ensuring that advice on careers and on the training related to careers is of a sort that is likely to lead to the encouragement of that thirst for learning and, thus, the greater participation that we all seek.

One might ask why I have reservations. Amendment No. 41, to which I did not speak at length in my opening remarks and on which the Minister did not dwell, either, makes provision for the existing dual-function Connexions service to be separated so that the targeted support can be focused on the young people who need it. The Connexions service cost £475 million in 2006-07, which is more than twice the cost of the careers service in its last year of operation—£236 million in 2000-01. Yet according to Government figures, less than a quarter of young people advised by Connexions actually require the kind of integrated support that it was designed to deliver.

The Minister is right to say that we need to strike a balance between tailored expertise on careers advice and the breadth of services, but I suspect that that balance is not finely tuned at present. That minority of young people who benefit from that range of services—they are often quite challenged people—is certainly getting a good deal out of the existing arrangements. They have a one-stop shop for the range of skills and advice that is necessary for them to prosper. However, I doubt that the generality of young people benefits from the existing arrangements, thus my call for a parallel all-age careers service, which could give the sort of skilled and expert advice necessary for the Bill to have the best effect. The clearer we are about that on the face of the Bill, the better.

Nor am I convinced that the Minister has dealt with the question of capacity. By definition, there will be additional demand: we will draw into the system young people who I suspect do not now seek anything from Connexions, wither careers advice or advice on lifestyle issues. One of the reasons why I asked him about the pilots of the adult careers service was that if we are going to take an holistic approach to the relationship between supply and demand, capacity issues and weighting, we need to know what the Government’s medium-term intentions are regarding the adult careers service. The Minister said that the Government have responded to the Leitch report, but we do not know much about the pilots. The message that I get from the sector is that there are doubts about whether the pilots have been carefully enough thought through and have been built around assumptions that can be tested. Are the pilots aimed at establishing any clear outcomes?

We need to target our support more effectively. The aim of the Bill and of the advice and guidance that is critical to its success is at least in part to deal with the problem of young people not in education, employment or training. It is a cause of immense shame that, according to official figures issued on 16 January, the number of people aged 16 to 25 not in employment, education or training has increased by 223,000 since 2002 to reach 1.24 million. The number of young people who are not in education, employment or training has grown steadily since 1997 and is now a shocking and unacceptable figure. It is inconceivable that the quality of the advice and the nature of the guidance that young people receive from school onwards do not have a role to play in dealing with that.

That is why I started my summation by saying that the Minister underestimates the significance of this part of the Bill and the amendments. It would perhaps not be an exaggeration to say that failure on NEETs is one of the most damning indictments of the present Government. If I feel strongly and state my case with some passion, it is because this a matter of real important. On the basis of what we have heard from the Minister, I am not inclined to press the amendment, but I hope that he will reflect further on the points made. It is not acceptable not to take this aspect of the Bill sufficiently seriously. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 55

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I beg to move amendment No. 190, in clause 55, page 29, line 38, leave out from beginning to ‘the’ in line 40 and insert—

‘(a) specifying’.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 191 to 194.

Amendment No. 95, in clause 55, page 30, line 5, at end insert—

‘(e) specify the minimum qualifications and experience required of providers of services.’.

Government amendments Nos. 195 to 197

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Given that we had a slight problem with the last pair of Government amendments, of which one was not put to the Committee, I want to be absolutely clear that I would like all eight Government amendments in the group to be put to the Committee and agreed to, so that we do not have to return to them on Report.

An effective Connexions service is critical to raising participation—a point that hon. Members have made on several occasions in this Committee and that has just been made at some length by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. We are committed to devolving responsibility for the delivery of the Connexions service to local education authorities. The Bill will achieve that, but it is important that the Government retain the means to ensure that the essential core functions of Connexions are delivered consistently across authority boundaries.

The Connexions service is currently delivered directly by the Department, and consistency can therefore be managed directly. It is critical to the work that the Connexions service does to reduce the number of young people not in education, employment and training, which will become ever more important under our proposals for raising the participation age, that there is national co-ordination and consistency, for the sake of service users. Clause 55 as drafted therefore proposed a broad power to give directions to a local education authority on the exercise of its Connexions functions set out in clause 54—the delivery of Connexions services. Subsections of clause 55 set out what the directions may cover.

On further consideration, I have decided that it would be better if that direction-making power were more tightly defined, and I imagine that members of the Committee will agree that that is desirable. That deals with a concern expressed to me on behalf of local government. The agreement between local and central Government following the local government White Paper allows local government a wide range of freedom and flexibility in how it delivers agreed outcomes. A broad power to direct might be taken to signal that central Government were not committed to that agreement, however clear and tightly focused our intention.

I shall outline the effect of each amendment as briefly as I can. Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 will narrow the power to direct by limiting its operation to the areas set out in the subsections that follow. Amendment No. 192 will remove from the scope of the directions two areas of operation: setting out how Connexions services are to be made available and specifying standards that are to be met. As I have just explained, I accept that those could be considered incompatible with the new local performance framework and the agreed national indicator set. Amendment No. 193 will replace the areas for direction removed by amendment No. 192 and therefore sets out what directions may cover. The first paragraph of amendment No. 192 allows directions that specify the descriptions of individuals who may be involved in delivering Connexions. We propose to use that to specify minimum qualifications for Connexions personal advisers.

Now is a good point to discuss amendment No. 95, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and is grouped with the Government amendments. I hope that it is a probing amendment, designed to clarify our expectations of the qualifications held by Connexions personal advisers. Quite apart from the provisions in clause 55, the quality standards for information, advice and guidance, which we discussed earlier, deal with the qualifications and experience of staff. We will ensure that local authorities must have regard to those standards. Section 10 of the standards is the relevant section. As I made clear, we will use the direction-making power provided by the first paragraph of the amendment to specify the minimum level of qualifications that we expect Connexions personal advisers to hold, in keeping with what is in the standard. On that basis, I hope that the amendment is not pressed.

The second paragraph of amendment No. 193 allows directions that require the authority to ensure that the authority or any Connexions provider delivering services on its behalf co-operates with the national Connexions Direct service. Connexions Direct is an award-winning national helpline and website service for young people. It complements face-to-face services provided by local Connexions services and is highly regarded by young people. The website regularly has over 100,000 visits per week. The service has received extremely positive feedback from young people. The website holds information on local Connexions provision—for example address and phone numbers, local website links and details of major activities or campaigns—which adds to the site’s value. It also supports local Connexions services. It will only work, however, if local authorities keep it up to date. The paragraph also allows directions requiring co-operation with Jobcentre Plus and any other agencies that help young people find suitable employment, education or training. I can envisage the national apprenticeship service being included here.

The third paragraph of amendment No. 193 allows directions to deal with the use of the Connexions brand. That is the direction-making power to which I referred when speaking to amendment No. 94. Since Connexions was established, the brand has acquired well established recognition among young people. We want the brand to continue to be prominent after local authorities take responsibility for the services under clause 54. That way, young people know the core services that are on offer and what they can expect.

Amendment No. 194 allows us to direct authorities to adhere to the national specifications for the Connexions client information system. That is very important if we are to have easy and rapid updating of information on individual young people. It is also important for ensuring that we have data security to high national standards.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister is giving a comprehensive account of these important amendments. To what extent does he anticipate local authorities will need to interact in this regard? We have not discussed that much. He mentioned the need to have systems that are interoperable. I am not sure we have sufficiently considered how much interaction there will be, not merely between agencies but between areas, for supporting young people.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

There is considerable interaction between different areas of Connexions. Services in those different areas will be delivered by local authorities and will be the responsibility of local authorities. The sorts of interaction generally relate to young people who live in one place and access education and training or work in another. There are also young people who travel from one place to another and who might turn up in a different place and access Connexions. A decision has to be made on whether they are temporarily in a place and it is best to continue with the previous personal adviser, or whether it is best to transfer the advice into the local area. Similarly if a Connexions service run by a local authority in one area where a young person lives started the advice, it is likely that they would carry on that advice even if a young person accessed education and training in a different authority. A decision might, however, be made between authorities, in consultation with the young person and the educational institution they are attending, on whether or not it is appropriate to move the service from one local authority to another. I hope that that satisfactorily answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Beneath that sort of real interaction, which is designed to offer a joined-up, seamless service for young people, data transfers are required within the Connexions client information system. The hon. Gentleman used the word interoperable, which may not be entirely the right word, but if the services are all to be delivered to the same standard, the various data systems do need to be interoperable. The relationship with Connexions Direct and the Connexions client information system is a different one. The national Connexions service does not hold data on individuals; the data that are passed up are anonymised and are used for statistical purposes.

The hon. Gentleman can make his long and passionate speech about our difficulties with NEETs, but while we are on the subject, it is worth saying that the rise in the number of NEETs is due partly to the rise in the number of 16 to 18-year-olds, but we certainly do not shy away from the problems. However, participation rates have increased in recent years: the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds in education or training was 77.3 per cent. at the end of 2006, an increase from 76.8 per cent. the previous year. We are seeing some good trends, but that does not mean that we do not take the problem very seriously. The whole reason for trying to pass the Bill is that we want to be able to tackle this problem.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I do not want to go down the NEETs road, Mr. Bayley, not because it is not vital, but because I suspect you would not let me. Back on this issue of interoperability, which is critical to this group of amendments, we heard disturbing evidence from the Association of Colleges that, in its opinion, the Connexions database, which lies at the heart of the Bill’s work, was “not fit for purpose”. I speak without knowledge of that beyond what we were offered, and certainly with no dogma, but that analysis was disturbing. That view was later countered by other witnesses, but given what the Minister was just saying about that database being the heart of the information that is going to be shared across agencies and areas, on what basis does he think that claim was made and is there any substance in it?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Obviously I heard what the Association of Colleges had to say in response to the question and what was said by the witness from Connexions who disagreed with that assessment. I have looked at other assessments of the CCIS by the Prime Minister’s delivery unit, among others. There is a good degree of confidence in the system. That does not mean to say that in the period between now and when we raise the participation age, there is not further refinement to be done to the system, but we remain extremely confident that is a robust system, which has been working reasonably well for Connexions in its present operations.

Amendment No. 194 will also allow us to issue directions on another important subject. Young people, especially in our cities, often go to a school, college or training provider outside their home area. If for any reason they drop out of learning, it is most important that that information gets swiftly to the Connexions provider for that school or college, and that the provider passes on the information without delay so that it reaches the authority in the person’s home area. If the young person has dropped out of learning, it is the home authority that has the duty to follow them up and to take every possible step to get them back into education, training or employment.

Amendment No. 195, makes it clear that matters in subsections (3) and (4) are those about which directions can be given. Finally, amendments Nos. 196 and 197 are important clarificatory amendments. Amendment No. 196 deals with the effective delivery of a range of important services to improve opportunities for young people. It makes it clear that directions can require a local education authority to ensure that whoever carries out Connexions functions under clause 54, whether it is the local authority or a Connexions provider, also provides other services specified in the direction. Those services need not relate to education, but may relate to social security. For example, it is intended that, if necessary, the power could be used to ensure that local education authorities and others providing Connexions services are also responsible for conducting work-focused interviews with young persons, using powers in social security legislation. That ensures that a range of activity aimed at helping young persons into education, training or employment can be brought together in one place. Amendment No. 197 makes it clear that different directions, as provided for in this clause, can be given, depending on the Connexions service in question.

Having set out the case for amendments Nos. 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 and 197, I ask the Opposition not to press amendment No. 95.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister said that he felt we would be pleased with the amendments, because they clarify and specify various aspects of how, why and where advice and guidance will be given to young people in respect of the new provisions in the Bill. He is right: I do welcome those clarifications. The Bill was insufficiently clear as drafted. For some of the reasons that I advanced during the debate on the previous set of amendments, we think that that is unacceptable and seek greater clarity of the kind the Minister is hoping to provide through the Government amendments. That is why we tabled amendment No. 95, which would specify the minimum qualifications and experience required of providers of services, although I note that the Government’s panoply of amendments also deals with the nature of providers and their qualifications.

The important aspect of this debate, which we will no doubt repeat when we discuss amendment No. 96, is that we need to be absolutely clear about how, where and by what method advice is to be given. I intervened on the Minister in respect of interaction between agencies, and I think that he recognises that that is an important point. I am not sure, however, that interaction is assisted by the enormous number of organisations that are now to have a hand in giving advice or managing the system. For example, there is to be a new apprenticeships advisory body—the national apprenticeships service—as a result of the apprenticeships review. It is not terribly clear how that will co-ordinate its work with all the others that have a role in these matters.

I could go on about some of the other risks of lack of clarity and consistency in the way young people are guided and supported, but the Minister is right to say that the Government amendments are helpful. They do provide some of the answers to questions we have posed, and they are certainly a step in the right direction. It would therefore be churlish of us not to give them a welcome, if only a lukewarm welcome, or to divide the Committee on any of them. Neither, on that basis, would we want to press amendment No. 95.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 96, in clause 55, page 30, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—

‘(a) may be functions or services relating to social security,

(b) may specify co-ordination of careers information and guidance with learn Direct and Job Centre Plus, and

(c) may specify the provision of functions and services matching young people with employers offering apprenticeships.’.

After that uncontentious run through a series of procedurally complex amendments, we move to the altogether more straightforward matter of amendment No. 96. As we have been discussing, the clause gives the Secretary of State the power to give directions to a local authority relating to the exercise of its duty to provide support for effective participation. There are concerns that the clause will not ensure that basic standards will be met. I have made the argument this morning that we need to be explicit in our demands on those who are missioned to provide support to young people. Amendment No. 95, which I did not press, was designed to ensure that professional standards were adequate, and the Government amendments add some of the greater clarity that I have argued for.

The amendment may be fairly technical, but it reflects concerns that through our discussions and in the Bill we should support high-quality careers advice and a highly professional careers service. In their memorandum on the Bill, all the professional bodies involved in careers advice said that the clause needs to be strengthened. It currently provides a power to the Secretary of State, but they argue that it should be a duty. The professional bodies urge that

“at the appropriate time in the passage of the Bill, an amendment to this effect be tabled.”

They feel that it is

“unacceptable to leave this to ‘chance’; the Secretary of State should ensure that, in every locality, quality is assured to national specification and standards.”

There is a great danger that the system of careers advice that is developing is fragmented because it consists of too many agencies with overlapping responsibilities. The amendment is designed to address that risk. I alluded to that point a few moments ago when I mentioned the doubts about whether the apprenticeship review would add yet more complexity to the system, obscuring it still further. There is the new adult careers service that the Government are piloting, consisting of Learn Direct and Next Step; skills brokers, who offer advice in respect of Train to Gain; the new apprenticeship service that I have mentioned; Connexions, for young people, which I described earlier as a jack of all trades; and additional advice that will be offered, as it is now, through schools and colleges, often completely independently of Connexions.

It will be hard enough to draw the new young people whom we will be dealing with into the system, as many of them face all kinds of challenges. I suspect that the best way of advising and guiding them will be through a system that is transparent, accessible and straightforward. It is not certain that the panoply of organisations in the domain will provide that degree of clarity. Our doubts relate primarily to quality, which must be assured. That concern has been a theme of our debate thus far this morning. Secondly, they relate to consistency: what is done must work across organisations and areas. Thirdly, they relate to clarity and transparency, and thus the need for a dedicated service.

There is a strong case that the adult service should be joined up, with advice given to young people through an all-age careers service. If we really want to imbue a culture of learning as Lord Leitch advocates, we need a respected and universally recognised source of advice that everyone can access. That sort of recognition requires a universal service. I do not want to become tiresome in my advocacy of that approach, but we have an important opportunity to explore the quality and nature of the advice that we offer young people. On that basis, I wait to hear whether the Minister can offer us further assurances on those three areas of doubt that I have identified.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

We have agreed to all but one of the Government amendments to clause 55, which make more specific the direction-giving power that we feel is needed. The amendment largely applies to subsection (4), which is about joining up services rather than establishing new services. The amendment concerns Connexions providers co-ordinating careers information and guidance with Learn Direct and Jobcentre Plus. It also enables directions to specify Connexions to carry out functions in services matching young people with employers offering apprenticeships. As the clause is drafted, even in the amended form, we have all the powers necessary to do that, as well as the intention to do that.

It is important that Connexions providers liaise with all the local services that are helping young people to get the skills, training and jobs that they need. As we have discussed, the directions allowed by the clause will provide the power to direct those providing Connexions services to co-operate with those exercising functions or providing services relating to social security, such as Jobcentre Plus. They could also be used to require co-operation with other agencies that help young people to find employment, education or training. Connexions services have a good track record of working with Jobcentre Plus and other agencies, and we do not want to disturb that. However, if we feel that we have to direct authorities on the issue, we will do so. We will consult on the detailed content of the directions on the passage of the Bill.

On the subject of matching young people with employers offering apprenticeships, the Committee may know that the apprenticeship review announced plans for a new national apprenticeships service. I do not want to say too much about that now as I imagine that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills may want to touch on it when we discuss clause 67. However, I will say that we expect the national apprenticeships service to work closely with Connexions, perhaps even being based, in some cases, in Connexions’ high street outlets. The national apprenticeships service will also help careers guidance staff in schools and colleges to offer well informed and balanced advice about the apprenticeship programme to all their students. The field force could be invited by schools and colleges to participate in careers guidance evenings, to give students direct information.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has concerns about quality assurance. We have already discussed that, and I have mentioned many times that the quality standard will have statutory force. Clearly there is some overlap with other agents, but we want the wide remit for Connexions personal advisers to continue, and to be developed and deepened and the quality raised, so that the advisers can hold the ring for young people and are able to broker access to the range of other agencies that might be able to provide specific and discrete advice. I hope that that satisfies the Committee and that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the amendment is not necessary and will therefore withdraw it.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

We have had a good run on this matter this morning and I think that the Minister has got the message that we are absolutely determined that the advice and guidance given to young people should be appropriate, and that we have greater doubts than he has about the capacity of the existing system to deliver that appropriate service.

The Government’s thinking on that might be iterative, in that the piloting of an adult service could lead to a different perspective on how careers advice is given to adults and young people alike. Indeed, I predict that, over time, we will rethink the relationship between Connexions and careers advice and guidance. The purpose of the amendment was to explore those issues, and it has done its job. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I want to make a few remarks, essentially to get an assurance from the Minister on the record. The clause says that local education authorities in England

“may provide, secure the provision of or participate in the provision of services”.

Does that open the door for local authorities not just to provide services themselves but to procure those services from the voluntary sector?

During our evidence-taking sessions we heard from two organisations that are particularly successful in working with young people who have perhaps become disengaged from education—the Prince’s Trust and Fairbridge. Both organisations have extremely good track records of working with people who are not in education, employment or training.

During the recess, I attended City of Bristol college at a time when a group of young people who had been through a Prince’s Trust course were completing their assignments and giving their end-of-course presentations. The transformation of those young people from the start of the course to the giving of their presentations to the audience was quite incredible, particularly given their growth in self-confidence while under the care of the Prince’s Trust. I have seen similar journeys by people who have taken Fairbridge access to learning courses.

I would like an assurance from the Minister that the clause opens the way for local education authorities to engage with the third sector—after all, we do have a Minister with responsibility for the third sector. Such organisations should have a recognised role in providing information, advice and guidance, or access to learning and training courses, which will perhaps lead to formal qualifications. I would like an assurance that the clause opens that possibility.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The clause principally relates to the responsibility of local authorities to deliver Connexions services in line with current practice. It will allow local authorities the maximum possible flexibility. The clause proposes that local authorities should have the power to deliver Connexions services on behalf of another local authority where such arrangements are already made. The clause can be used by local education authorities to procure services from others, including the voluntary sector.

Subsection (1)(a) and (b) refer to clause 54, which states in subsection (3):

“For the purposes of this section and section 55, a local education authority makes services available if it ... makes arrangements with another local education authority or another person for their provision.”

That provision allows local education authorities to use some of the niche capability to which the hon. Gentleman rightly referred, and which can be extremely effectively delivered by voluntary sector organisations. I hope that he agrees, along with the rest of the Committee, that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 98, in clause 58, page 31, line 32, after ‘56(1)(b)’, insert

‘and subject to the consent of the pupil or student.’.

As you will have noticed, Mr. Bayley, after his arduous work over recent weeks, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is having a rather quieter time this morning than he has had thus far. The burden has fallen heavily on me. None the less, he has been useful and supportive, as always in our team, in reminding me of the substance of the amendment. According to the explanatory notes:

“Clause 58 places a duty on the responsible persons for educational institutions to allow Connexions service providers reasonable access to pupils and students and to provide reasonable facilities on the institution’s premises for providing services.”

The amendment is straightforward, and it simply says that the powers that Connexions service providers are given should be

“subject to the consent of the pupil or student.”

That is important, because it underpins the approach that we have taken throughout our considerations that the Bill must be about engaging young people by encouraging them to make a positive commitment, rather than obliging them in a way that is likely to exacerbate their detachment from learning and skilling. We have relentlessly championed the cause of those young people, particularly the most vulnerable, and I make no apologies for doing so. It is my mission in politics to speak most loudly for those least able to speak for themselves. In that spirit, I am proud to have moved the amendment that stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, who has given me such assistance in making this short peroration.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I start by congratulating the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and his scriptwriter, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, on that peroration. The effect of the amendment would be to prevent Connexions services from having access to students and available facilities in their place of learning, unless consent was given by the student. That would make it much more difficult for the Connexions service to provide support to young people, and it would also create an unhelpful, complicated and confusing layer of bureaucracy for schools and colleges.

Learning providers already enable all students to access Connexions, so that the service can offer them support. As local authorities are going to take responsibility for providing the Connexions service, the present arrangements should continue. If that were not the case, it would significantly jeopardise the effectiveness of the Connexions service. If accepted, the amendment would mean that the Connexions service would be unable to access in their place of learning young people who failed or refused to give their consent. Very often, those young people are the most vulnerable ones, and include individuals with behavioural problems or chaotic lifestyles—the very people whom the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has told us it is his mission in politics to represent.

The amendment would effectively bar Connexions services from helping the young people who need their support the most. I do not believe that that is the hon. Gentleman’s intention. I believe it is rather to ensure that if learning providers provide Connexions services access to their students, the students are under no obligation to accept the offer of Connexions support unless they choose to do so. That is existing practice, particularly in the case of one-to-one support, where the student has actively to engage with the Connexions personal adviser of their own volition.

The clause, as drafted, will continue to facilitate the existing arrangements, which are vital to the successful operations of Connexions services. There is no question of a young person being put in detention so that they can be forced to have a meeting with the personal adviser. It would remain a voluntary activity on the part of the young person. I would not want Connexions to be unable to go on to a school site without a specific piece of consent from a specific pupil.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

One of the problems that arises at some further education colleges is that popular courses are oversubscribed. If there is a hairdressing suite, for example, it can only take so many hairdressers. Would the provision interfere with that in any way? Would it enable a Connexions adviser to force somebody on to a hairdressing course if there was not really room for them?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

No, it would not interfere with that at all. There is no question of personal advisers forcing individuals on to particular courses. It is important that young people are motivated to take courses.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I did not mean forcing an individual to do a course, but forcing the institution to take an extra individual when that course is full.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I do not believe that the service would have the power to force institutions to take individuals on to certain courses. The only powers of which I am aware are those that require institutions to accept individuals of compulsory school age. Those matters are dealt with in the admissions code, which has statutory force. The change that we made in the Education and Inspections Act 2006 means that a local authority can require an institution to take a looked-after child if it is in the best interests of that child’s education. I hope that in the light of my response to those interventions and my reasoning the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I shall not press the amendment, although I want to re-emphasise my point: the system will work only if it inspires young people to make their own commitment to be advised and trained. It will not work if young people are dragged grudgingly, kicking and screaming, towards the Connexions adviser, then forced on to a training course that they do not want to take. That will simply not work. During the passage of the Bill, we have made that point repeatedly—amplified beautifully by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton in particular—but I am not sure that it has been heard clearly by Ministers. Although I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, I suspect that we will return to the matter time and again in the continuing passage of the legislation.

Clause 59

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 184, in clause 59, page 32, line 11, at end insert—

‘(c) the information, advice or guidance to be provided by telephone or other electronic means may include information and options expressed by persons who have pursued or are pursuing education, training or careers which are of interest to the said young persons and relevant young adults.’.

This group of amendments—

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

To clarify the position for the hon. Gentleman’s benefit, we are considering the two amendments separately: at the moment we are debating amendment No. 184; we will come to amendment No. 185 later.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am grateful, Mr. Bayley. I have notes on both amendments, but I accept that we are dealing with them separately.

Amendment No. 184 would insert additional subsection (c) into the clause, and I will illustrate the subject with a word or two about the view of the distinguished educational charity, Edge. Clause 59 says:

“The Secretary of State may provide or secure the provision of services for encouraging, enabling or assisting the effective participation of young persons and relevant young adults in England in education or training.”

As Edge reminds us, that includes the publication of information, advice and guidance, and responding to particular requests for information electronically or by telephone. The provision for advice is important, and clause 59 should be read alongside clause 66, which requires schools to provide impartial information and advice for education, training and careers.

As an aside, I am anxious that the advice given by schools and colleges and the advice given by Connexions should be consistent. In our last debate, we talked about the new powers that Connexions will have to offer advice in educational institutions, but we did not explore in detail the risk of inconsistency, which might come from advice being given by different people to individuals in schools and colleges. The Minister might want to deal with that in his summation.

The Edge foundation welcomes the clauses, because they emphasise the importance of comprehensive and impartial information, advice and guidance on educational training and careers. However, it believes that if young people are interested in a particular course or career, they should be able to hear directly from people who have pursued, or are pursuing, that course or career. There are many ways in which that can be achieved, but the internet opens up almost unlimited opportunities. That argument has considerable merit. Young people are often most inspired by people who have done something themselves. Through such examples, we can engage people whom we might not successfully encourage down a particular professional route by other means. Edge uses as an example the national youth volunteering service, which provides substantial financial support for a web-based service called “horsesmouth”. Through horsesmouth, people considering different options for learning and careers put questions to people who have faced similar choices. The website says:

“When faced with a choice, challenge or change in life, do you ever wonder how other people have coped in the same situation—what choices did they make, and how did they turn out? Wouldn’t it be useful if you could talk to someone who has been there, done that and is willing to share their first-hand experience with you? Wouldn’t it be great fun if that could be anonymous, confidential and secure?”

Such services should form a core part of the service offered by the Secretary of State in pursuance of the power created by clause 59, and that is the purpose of amendment No. 184. Essentially, the argument is that we should use the latest technology, emulate the best existing practice, and recognise that young people are often most influenced by seeing how something has been done through the eyes of someone else who has done it.

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

I am listening with interest to the case that the hon. Gentleman is making for other mechanisms to give information, advice and guidance, not least the suggestions from Edge and horsesmouth. Is he aware that the all-party skills group is conducting an inquiry into information, advice and guidance? That report will be published in due course, to the edification, I hope, of everyone, including Ministers.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Yes, I was aware of that, because I do, as the hon. Gentleman knows, maintain a healthy dialogue with the all-party group. In fact, I am pleased to have been invited to attend and speak at events organised by the hon. Gentleman, and I pay tribute to his work in that regard. I hope that the all-party group will come to a similar conclusion to the one that I have reached on advice and guidance, which I have articulated at considerable, but not sufficient, length.

There is good practice out there, and not all of it revolves around the mainstream institutions. It stems partly from the dynamism offered by technology, from which we can learn from and which therefore needs to be built into our thinking when considering this part of the Bill. I do not know if the all-party group has had a chance to look at that proposal, but if they have not, it may not be too late to use the provision as a catalyst for doing so.

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

Although we are an all-party group and not subject to the requirements of Select Committees, it would be invidious to go into too much detail ant what may, or may not, be proposed. However, this is an area in which everyone, including the Government, wishes to look carefully at new mechanisms. The question is: what are the precise devices for using the new mechanisms?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I did not want to compromise the hon. Gentleman’s position, as I am sure he knows, but we have had a helpful exchange. The way in which people gather, exchange and use information has changed immensely, and continues to do so. That lies at the core of our considerations today. The fact that we are talking about young people only exaggerates the significance of that point, because I suspect that many young people are accustomed to accessing information wholly or mainly by technological means. That is why Edge has done us a service in advising us on these matters, and I am delighted to reflect its perspective in the amendment.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I agree with Edge, with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, and with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South, that it is important that young people should have access to the opinions and experiences of those who are already engaged in education, training or a particular career. I am pleased to be able to tell the Committee that the national service, Connexions direct, provides that material on its excellent website, www.connexions-direct.com, and I am sure the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will be reaching as we speak for his hand-held device to access it, Mr. Bayley, if that is in order.

Furthermore, if a young person cannot find a case study that is relevant to them, they can inform the Connexions contractor, who will take steps to find or commission an appropriate case study. That is precisely what Edge and the hon. Gentleman are interested in. There are close links between Connexions direct and organisations such as sector skills councils, which have databases of case studies that can be accessed. Connexions direct is an extremely successful service for young people in England, and it also offers an excellent helpline on 080 800 13219. There are more than 100,000 visits a week to the website, with an average 6,000 contacts to the helpline. The service has won several awards, and it offers information, advice and guidance at a time and in a way that is convenient and tailored to the needs of young people, particularly those who like to access their information by technology. Connexions direct is always considering new ways and initiatives to improve its service, and I am sure it will have listened carefully to what hon. Members have said, and will listen to what the all-party group report and Edge might tell it.

As for the consistency between schools and Connexions that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings raised at the beginning of his speech, 14-to-19 partnerships have responsibility to ensure proper co-ordination between careers education in schools and the information, advice and guidance provided by Connexions and local authorities. The quality standards set out that requirement, and I have already referred to the importance of those standards. Local 14-to-19 consortiums have to show that they meet the standards to progress through the diploma gateway. As the service the hon. Gentleman requires is already available, and will continue to be so under the clause as drafted, and given the indications I have made to the Committee, I invite him to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I appreciate the Minister’s remarks. This is a probing amendment, designed to highlight an important matter. The Minister might want to reflect further on the generality of this debate, given what the hon. Member for Blackpool, South and I have said and what Edge has observed. By the time that the Bill is enacted, assuming that that is so—we have no guarantee that the Bill will ever become law—it could easily be the case that anything other than the advice and guidance that is offered through the means that horsesmouth uses will be regarded as archaic. In that context, we need to be absolutely clear about how we use the available technology to best effect.

The revolution has only just begun, and although I am a deep Conservative and am resistant to all revolutions, I suspect that we have to deal with the inevitability of a changed world with regard to the use, exchange and distribution of information. Nevertheless, on the basis of what the Minister has said and the chance that we have had to explore those matters, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 185, in clause 59, page 32, line 11, at end insert—

‘(c) the provision, in response to requests by young persons and relevant young adults with visual impairment, of text books and educational course materials, capable of enlargement and enhancement by electronic means.’.

This is the amendment that I tried to move earlier, but you advised me that I could not do so, Mr. Bayley.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

It was a simple matter of looking at my selection list.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Indeed. The amendment speaks for itself. We have not said much—indeed, we have perhaps said too little—about how the Bill will affect young people with various kinds of disability. Among the population of NEETs, as I lamented earlier, is a substantial number of young people with learning difficulties or other disabilities, and we need to concentrate particularly on their needs if we are to be successful in providing them with appropriate training that is likely to allow them to gain employment. The amendment deals with one group of young people: those with visual impairment. We ought, however, to find ways during the passage of the Bill to speak more broadly about disabled young people and people with learning difficulties.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is an important but very narrow amendment dealing with visual impairment. He rightly says that there might be opportunities elsewhere in the Bill to discuss other disabilities, but we should stick to visual impairment, because it is with that that the amendment is concerned.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I take your point, Mr. Bayley. I did say, very much in that spirit, that we might find an opportunity to debate the wider issue at another time, but this debate is specifically about people with visual impairment. The amendment would implicitly add value to clause 59. It is important that we make adequate provision for young people who might otherwise be disfranchised simply because they cannot access the materials necessary to improve their circumstances. I find it almost inconceivable that, on that basis, the Minister will fail to accept the amendment.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

This is an important if narrow amendment, which gives us the opportunity to right a wrong of which I was not previously aware, as may have been the case for other members of the Committee. It was drawn to my attention last year. Hon. Members may recall a lobby in Westminster Hall called “Right to Read”, in which parents of sight-impaired children came to Parliament lobby their MPs about their inability to access textbooks and learning material in schools.

At the moment, when a partially sighted pupil in a mainstream school goes to a lesson, the teacher must identify the relevant pages of the textbook that will be used and photocopy them. That takes up teaching time and delays the partially sighted pupil’s ability to start work. There are also obvious disadvantages with homework, as the situation deters those children from working independently. Initial inquiries that I made last year have led me to understand that there is not a copyright problem in having school textbooks available online, so that individual partially sighted pupils can enlarge and enhance the relevant text to their own needs.

It follows that the same problem will apply in college. I would therefore like to take the opportunity to make teaching materials available to partially sighted pupils in college, because it gives them independence and they will not have to rely on the additional service of teachers. If they could access all their teaching materials and textbooks independently online, it would be of enormous advantage to them, and it is relatively simple to make such material available.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am in complete agreement with the hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings and for Upminster that young people with visual impairments should be able to derive the same benefit from information provision as their peers.

I applaud the hon. Member for Upminster for raising the “Right to Read” campaign and the importance of school textbooks being accessible to people with visual impairments. I will not be distracted for long in responding to her concerns, because I am aware of the narrowness of the amendment, Mr. Bayley, as you reminded the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. However, part IV of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires schools and local authorities to plan to improve access to the curriculum and written materials to disabled pupils over time. In addition, the new disability equality duty introduced by the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 into the 1995 Act requires all public bodies, including schools and local authorities, to promote disability equality more widely. As a result, new subsection 49A(1)(d), which deals with the general duty, includes

“the need to take steps to take account of disabled persons’ disabilities, even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than other persons”.

That is the duty under which we would want to see that problem addressed.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

May I just add that 2008 is the national year of reading, so it would be the ideal time to take this step?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It certainly is the national year of reading. I had an excellent meeting with the consortium that is helping us to deliver it yesterday. I will look at whether there are opportunities to develop reading materials for the group which the hon. Member for Upminster discussed.

As hon. Members may be aware, my Department’s special educational needs strategy, “Removing Barriers to Achievement”, sets out our vision for giving children with special educational needs and disabilities the opportunity to succeed. Furthermore, as I have said, there are various duties in the disability discrimination legislation that cover the needs of visually impaired young people, as is the case with other disability groups. The national service, Connexions direct, which is subject to the amendment, has taken great steps to ensure that its services are available to people with visual impairment. It is concerned with the provision of information, advice and support to young people, rather than with the provision of course materials, which was raised by the hon. Member for Upminster. To meet best practice and Government accessibility guidelines, the Connexions direct website has been developed to comply with the web accessibility initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium. Connexions direct has worked extensively with the Royal National Institute of Blind People to ensure that, as far as possible, its materials are accessible to people with visual impairments. I have a list of about seven things they have done to meet that standard.

As a result of making those changes and design amendments, Connexions direct was successful in winning a visionary design award for the site’s outstanding efforts in ensuring the accessibility of content for visually impaired users. I am assured that it is committed to keeping that design on its website, to which the amendment refers. I trust that, in the light of that assurance, and the fact that this really is an example of best practice, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I will do so but, first, I wish to endorse the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster that this is a critically important matter. I am delighted to hear that Connexions has won that award and that it takes seriously its work for visually impaired young people. The access to information for visually impaired people is variable—I am not speaking in particular about Connexions, but about access more generally—which explains our determination to highlight the matter by tabling an amendment. The Minister has responded positively to the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster and myself, but we will not rest until we are sure that those good intentions are carried through and that visually impaired young people have the same opportunities that are enjoyed by all other young people. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment on the basis of the assurances we have received today.

Clause 60

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 99, in clause 60, page 32, line 24, after ‘State’, insert

‘or on request by at least 50 pupils, students or parents resident in the local authority area’.

Clause 60 places a duty on the chief inspector to inspect and report on Connexions services

“when requested to do so by the Secretary of State”.

As the House of Lords inquiry into the apprenticeship system found last year, Ofsted, which previously inspected Connexions partnerships, has not had the power to inspect Connexions since 2004 except as part of a wider joint area review. In previous debates, I have quoted the report by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs entitled “Apprenticeship: a key route to skill”, which acknowledged that there had been no proper oversight of Connexions by Ofsted since 2004.

Amendment 99 would ensure that, if local people are concerned about the quality of the Connexions service in their area, they can trigger an inspection by the Chief inspector. It would make the process of inspection responsive to local needs. In responding to the amendment, will the Minister explain the process which would lead the Secretary of State to insist on an inspection under the Bill as drafted? Doubts about the inspection machinery for Connexions underlie the amendment. The Minister has spoken a great deal about advice and guidance this morning, because that is the area of the Bill with which we are dealing. Indeed, he has spoken confidently about the role of Connexions in giving that advice and guidance. However, if that role is to be assured, an appropriate inspections regime must be in place, and we are not confident that that is the case.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The clause provides that Her Majesty’s chief inspector of education, children’s services and skills must inspect and report on matters concerning Connexions services if requested to do so by the Secretary of State or at any other time she thinks fit. The amendment proposes that if at least 50 pupils, students or parents resident in a local authority request an investigation, the chief inspector would be under a duty to conduct one. I reassure the Committee that individuals or groups are free to petition the Secretary of State or Her Majesty’s chief inspector to undertake inspections. Such petitions are taken very seriously by both parties. Indeed, one complaint that identifies a significant risk to the well-being of young people is all that is needed under the current regime.

Moreover, in performing her functions, Her Majesty’s chief inspector is under a general duty to encourage user-focused services. She must have regard to views expressed by service users and parents. It must be for the benefit of children and employers that services are inspected, and their levels of satisfaction must be taken into account. Those provisions are set out in section 119 of the Education Inspections Act 2006. They apply to all of the functions of Her Majesty’s chief inspector and will therefore apply to inspections under the clause.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Why is the current regime not working? According to the House of Lords inquiry, an inspection of Connexions has not taken place since 2004. Is that right?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Between autumn 2002 and autumn 2004, Ofsted carried out full inspections of 28 Connexions partnerships. It is worth saying that of those partnerships, 89 per cent. were rated as satisfactory or better, and 60 per cent. as good or better. There have been no further inspections focused solely on Connexions partnerships. Instead, from September 2005, Ofsted, along with other inspectorates, has undertaken holistic joint area reviews—known in the trade as JARs—of services for children and young people in a local authority area. JARs replace the separate inspections of local education authorities, social services, Connexions services and the provision for students aged 14 to 19.

The programme of JARs will end in late 2008, and from next year, most inspections of area-level services will be bespoke to an area and triggered by a multi-inspectorate annual comprehensive area assessment—CAA—led by the Audit Commission and including Ofsted. Inspectorates are currently working up arrangements for the CAA. The first consultation on principles will end this month, and the inspectorates plan to consult on details in summer 2008. That is the normal scenario that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings asked about in respect of how the Secretary of State will instruct the chief inspector to carry out inspections of Connexions. That will be rolled into the CAA process.

The clause provides for a flexible and responsive system that allows the views of service users to be taken into account and that can target inspections to the level of risk. I do not believe that using a fixed number of requests as a trigger for an inspection is the best way to use inspection resources. More importantly, that would risk sending the message that the receipt of fewer than 50 requests, however serious they are, is not significant. I hope that in the light of that compelling reasoning, the reasonable hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am not sure that the Minister’s reasoning was as compelling as he would have us believe, but I will not press the amendment. I have no wish to inconvenience the Committee unduly, but we must get the issue of inspection right. I am not sure that JARs are the best mechanism for dealing with Connexions inspections, and I hope that the Minister will reflect again on how we can build a better, more responsive protocol for the inspection of careers advice and guidance in particular, as that will be critical to the working of the Bill. Nevertheless, the Minister’s reasoning was just compelling enough to encourage me, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 43, in clause 60, page 32, line 27, at end insert—

‘(1A) Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector must, in exercising his functions in subsection (1), inspect any support services provided and make an assessment of whether such services facilitate the effective participation of persons belonging in a local authority area to whom this Part applies and who have special educational needs.’.

The Connexions service plays a vital role in helping young people with special educational needs to make the transition from education to employment. I have emphasised how significant we believe the challenge is. There are certainly problems with how many young people with special educational needs secure appropriate employment. There are some great success stories, which need to be championed and trumpeted. However, as an academic study in 2003 found, there are significant problems with the service. That report concluded:

“The findings from this project are consistent with other studies in highlighting the unsatisfactory nature of much transition planning for young people with learning difficulties...we remain concerned that, despite efforts to stimulate interest, work and employment hardly featured. Raising expectations and belief in young people and their families about work must become much more central to the educational and the Connexions task. This must be matched by close working between PAs and Careers Advisors in the Connexions service plus the development links with local supported employment agencies—where they exist.”

Amendment No. 43 specifies that inspection of the Connexions service should include the inspection of facilities and services for young people with special educational needs. It therefore allows a broader consideration than my previous amendment, which applied only to people with visual impairment. That academic report—“Connecting with Connexions: the role of the Personal Adviser with young people with special educational and support needs”, by Bob Grove PhD and Alison Giraud-Saunders—highlighted examples of good practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster and I have both mentioned the ROSE project, the supported employment project in her area that does exactly the job—described as vital in the report I quoted—on the transition from education to employment with appropriate advice and, where necessary, support.

The situation that prevails in my hon. Friend’s area is not, however, universally enjoyed. There are insufficient high-quality supported employment opportunities for young people with special educational needs. As that academic study identified, that is partly because employment is not given sufficient priority in the guidance that young people with SEN are offered. To guarantee that it is given greater priority, the Bill must state that the Connexions inspection should look closely at the service’s success in providing such advice to people with SEN. This is another matter about which members on both sides of the Committee have strong feelings, and I feel particularly strongly about it. The Minister will know that people with SEN figure largely in the group he is determined to bring back into learning, and thus employment, because people with such needs clearly do not always do best under the system at the moment. At the age of 16, they are often virtually abandoned as far as their employment opportunities are concerned. I do not want to exaggerate the difference between us, but I urge the Minister to pay appropriate attention to this issue by demonstrating in his response to the amendment that the Government are determined that SEN young people should have just the same opportunities as their contemporaries whenever possible.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I should like to reassure the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that we, too, take very seriously the provision of appropriate Connexions services for young people with learning difficulties and disabilities. The duty on a local education authority proposed in clause 54 is to make services available to all young people between 13 and 19, and for young people with special educational needs between 13 and 24. Young people with special educational needs are therefore implicitly and explicitly included.

The quality standards for information, advice and guidance will be the centrepiece of the guidance on Connexions services that we will issue to local education authorities under clause 54(4)(b). They require that additional and sustained guidance and support is provided to young people with special needs or learning difficulties or disabilities. Clause 60 allows Her Majesty’s chief inspector to target an inspection on the provision of services for a particular part of the Connexions client group. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to target a request for an inspection in a similar fashion. Crucially—I know that the hon. Gentleman would not be satisfied with the word, “allows”, as he wants something more concrete than a power and closer to a duty—all assessments and inspections of children’s services are governed by the statutory framework for inspection of children’s services, under section 21 of the Children Act 2004.

The framework sets out 36 judgments which inspectors will seek to make. Five of the 36 judgments relate to children and young people with learning difficulties or disabilities. The framework will apply to local authority Connexions services inspected under clause 60. That being the case, I do not consider that we need to make an additional specific reference in the clause to make that possible.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

The Minister needs to give an assurance to outside bodies as well as the Committee. For example, TreeHouse has written to the Committee:

“In order to ensure that there is effective monitoring of the provisions for those young people with SEN we would like to see a requirement for Her Majesty’s...Inspector...to have available SEN specialist inspectors...We believe that such a focus would help to drive up standards.”

The Minister needs to give an assurance to TreeHouse, as well as to Committee members.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Certainly, in the words that I have just uttered I sought to reassure organisations such as TreeHouse about the provision. I take seriously its request that people with specialist skills should undertake SEN inspections, although I do not think that that is the subject of the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Will the Minister offer further reassurance to the Opposition and interested agencies by providing an assessment of how many NEETs are people with special educational needs? Will he give us a feel for the modelling that the Government have done as to how the Bill will apply specifically to people with SEN? Encouraging people to participate is one thing, but dealing with their needs is another. Unless they both happen, we are not going to deal with concerns such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton raised.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I do not have to hand or to the forefront of my mind the proportion of NEETs who learning difficulties or disabilities. However, if that information comes to me at any point, obviously I will pass it on to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee.

It is Government policy that inspection activities should be proportionate to risk. Specifying the focus of an inspection in that way would act against the policy and against our aims of reducing the regulatory burden. Clearly, there are circumstances when we might want Ofsted to carry out a specific inspection, and we have the powers to do that. Those inspections would be based on risk attached to information or to concerns about a particular service. However, to have the attitude that there is a general risk is contrary to the approach of specifying such matters through the overarching framework, which is the right way forward. May I tell the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that what he proposes in the amendment is already possible, as it is addressed in the overarching framework of children’s services? Therefore, while I agree with the sentiment of the amendment, it is not necessary and I hope that he will withdraw it.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am not entirely happy with what the Minister told us. The truth is that Ofsted does not inspect Connexions, or at least not very often—not since 2004. The notion that the existing regime is adequate in that regard is, at best, questionable. Similarly, I am not sure that the Government have given sufficient consideration in the Bill to people with special educational needs, not just in terms of inspection, but more generally. The Minister would do the Committee a service if he came back with an analysis of SEN in relation to NEETs and another detailed analysis of SEN in relation to the Bill’s provisions. The challenge is to bring into training and employment a much greater of proportion of people with special educational needs than are there at the moment. Such a challenge will only be met if we put the right advice and support in place. It is out there, in some places, as I said, but there are massive gaps in provision.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The hon. Gentleman believes that we have not paid sufficient attention to people with special educational needs. Throughout the Committee sittings, I have said time and again that we want every young person to be able to participate and that we need to configure services by local authorities and others to ensure that everyone, regardless of their needs, has the opportunity to do so. That is precisely what we want to achieve with the Bill: the galvanising effect to offer appropriate services for every single young person in this country, regardless of special educational needs.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I acknowledge that the Minister has made it clear that he wants everyone to participate—he would hardly introduce a Bill that insisted on universal participation if he did not want everyone to be involved. However, I am arguing that to get everyone to participate, particularly those with special educational needs, will be a very big mountain. To climb it, we have to put into place high-quality advice and support for people with the greatest needs, including those with learning difficulties and other disabilities.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. If he wishes to know how seriously we take this, it might help him to know that the annual destination survey by Connexions on the activities of young people on 1 November of the year in which they completed year 11 shows that in 2005, about 25 per cent. of young people with special educational needs whose destinations were known were not in education or training, 9.2 per cent of them being employed, and 15.2 per cent. being unemployed. Support for transition was one of the issues highlighted in the “Aiming High for Disabled Children: Better Support for Families” report of 2006, and there is a £19 million transition support programme for those young people.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is a helpful addition to our considerations. I will not press the matter to a vote, but I urge the Minister to look again at the issue of inspection, particularly with regard to special educational needs. I think that we underestimate at our peril the scale of the peak that we must surmount. We will short-change people with special educational needs unless we put the right systems in place to allow them to achieve their potential, just like other young people. I am determined to continue to make that case during the passage of the Bill by defending and advancing those young people’s interests, but at this juncture I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 101, in clause 60, page 32, line 34, at end insert ‘and the quality of such services.’.

It is a pleasure to take a full part in the Committee’s proceedings, having been the bag man for my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings for the past two hours. Clause 60 requires the inspector to conduct an inspection of Connexions when she thinks fit and when the Secretary of State requires her to do so. Subsection (3) states:

“A reference in subsection (1) to the provision of services includes a reference to the management and use of resources in providing services.”

It does not say anything about the quality of the service, or that the inspector should inspect the services in relation to quality, so the amendment would add the phrase,

“and the quality of such services”,

to the end of subsection (3). The Government want Connexions to be a high-quality service, but there are problems, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings has highlighted, given that there has not been an inspection of Connexions by Ofsted since 2004. “Quality Standards for Young People’s Information Advice and Guidance”, which has been published by the Minister’s Department, states:

“Staff providing information, advice and guidance services”

should be

“appropriately qualified, work to relevant professional standards and receive continuing professional development.”

It states that staff should have the

“skills, knowledge and qualifications to deliver a high quality service”.

They should be able to

“deliver information, advice and guidance to diverse client groups”

and

“know where to access impartial specialist advice.”

Guidance has therefore been published requiring quality services to be provided. It is important that the legislation require the chief inspector to have regard to the quality of the service, given the problems that have arisen in the past, and that there is a specific requirement that she have regard to the quality of provision set out in the legislation.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As we have heard, the amendment seeks to include in the clause the words, “quality of...services”, as that applies to the scope of inspections. I can understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, because one does not see the word, “quality”, when one reads the clause. However, as I will explain, the amendment is unnecessary because quality is specified in other pieces of legislation.

The hon. Gentleman has repeated the notion that there has been no inspection of Connexions since 2004. As I think I have set out to the Committee, there have been inspections of Connexions services since 2004, but not a specific inspection, as those inspections have been wrapped up in other local authority inspections. However, it would be wrong for anyone reading the record to be led into thinking that there has been no inspection since 2004. Section 118 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 provides that the chief inspector has the general duty of keeping the Secretary of State informed about the quality of services within her remit, as well as improvements in the quality of such services. Additionally, section 119 of the 2006 Act sets out that the chief inspector is to perform her functions for general purposes. That includes encouraging the improvement of activities within the chief inspector’s remit, and the carrying on of such activities in a user-focused fashion, both of which are measures of the quality of services.

Those purposes will apply to inspections under clause 60 in the same way that they do to all the chief inspector’s existing functions. The amendment could have the undesirable consequence of bringing into question the issue whether other inspections should focus on the quality of services being inspected if that function is specified. Accordingly, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am assured by those words, Mr. Bayley. It is good to have them on record, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 65

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 44, in clause 65, page 35, line 7, after ‘person’, insert

‘or the person was participating in School Action or School Action Plus programmes,’.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 45, in clause 65, page 35, line 16, after ‘age’, insert

‘or the person was participating in School Action or School Action Plus programmes,’.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Clause 65 which inserts new sections into the Learning and Skills Act 2000, the effect of which, as the explanatory note states,

“is to transfer to local education authorities, and to expand, the existing duty of the Secretary of State to arrange for assessments of a person’s educational and training needs in certain circumstances, and his power to arrange such assessments.”

The notes go on to state that the clause

“places a duty on a local education authority to arrange for an assessment of a person in respect of whom they maintain a statement of special educational needs, who is either in his last year of compulsory schooling or over compulsory school age but still at school, at some time during the person’s last year of schooling.”

We will return to the matter of someone who is in the last year of schooling later. My concern is about the phrase used in the notes, which suggests that the assessment applies only to someone with a statement of special educational needs.

The National Autistic Society has taken a close interest in the Bill and is concerned about the narrowness of that requirement. In its brief to the Committee, it says:

“The references to learning difficulty and special educational needs are welcome but not sufficient. In particular, the duty to assess education and training needs (clause 65) should not be restricted to those young people who have a statement.”

Inspired by those concerns, which we share, we tabled the amendment, which would include children who are subject to school action and school action plus programmes and therefore fall short of qualifying for a full statement of special educational needs under the provisions of the clause.

The National Autistic Society says:

“The requirement upon local authorities to assess the education and training needs of certain young people is welcome and this information should be used to inform the development of support services for young people.”

It emphasises the point:

“If this requirement is considered important and worthwhile it should be on offer to a much broader range of young people than those with statements of special educational needs.”

It goes on to say:

“Government policy is to encourage local authorities to reduce reliance on the use of statements, and there is considerable variation in access to the statementing system across the country.”

I am sure that many hon. Members, both in Committee and in the House, could give examples of constituents who have had enormous difficulty obtaining a statement of special educational needs for their child. Obtaining even an assessment can be very difficult and may require legal action. That is why the National Autistic Society go on to say:

“The use of statements as a passport to an assessment of education and training needs will therefore further exacerbate uneven access to support for many young people with special educational needs.”

It cites the example of young people with Asperger’s syndrome who

“may be less likely to have a statement of SEN than those with autism but would still benefit greatly from an assessment at 16. Although these young people are able academically, without the right support they are likely to struggle or even fail.”

The purpose of the two amendments is to ensure that those children who do not qualify for an SEN assessment will nevertheless be given an assessment under the clause.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Good afternoon, Mr. Bayley. I rise not only to support the amendments, but to prove to you and the Minister that I have not taken any Trappist vows since our proceedings ended on Thursday. I hope that you are reassured by that.

The amendments are important and link with amendment No. 160, which we will discuss later. They are necessary to ensure that the increasing focus of statements on a small minority of pupils does not mean that we miss out on diagnosing the needs of other young people who are covered by School Action and School Action Plus and who may well need support to continue in education and training post-16.

The briefing that the Local Government Association provided to the Committee comments very briefly on the clause. All it says is:

“It is conceivable comments may be passed on the adequacy or otherwise of local authority SEN provision/assessments under existing regulations.”

For many people across the country, I suspect that that is something of an understatement. Much concern has been voiced in the past year and further back about the inconsistency of statementing across the country. Frankly, there is a concern that statementing is rationed in many parts of the country, particularly in smaller authorities with very limited budgets, where providing a larger budget for statementing would mean taking money away from other areas. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton set out very clearly, there is concern about some young people in parts of the country where there are greater budget pressures and more rationing who may have very similar needs and characteristics to other young people in parts of the country where there is a more generous approach. We do not want to have a local lottery where some young people simply do not have their needs properly captured and so are not well provided for beyond the age of 16.

Many of the outside lobby groups have drawn our attention to the fact that the Government have a policy for all youngsters in school of trying not to statement excessively. They want to use School Action and School Action Plus more frequently than in the past and, on the whole, that is quite sensible. We do not want to create a vast bureaucracy around many young people. We want a lot of their needs to be dealt with as flexibly as possible, both at school level and by enabling local authorities to cascade additional resources down that do not require the same level of bureaucracy and intervention as is inevitable when statementing is involved.

Because of that trend in Government policy, there is an even greater risk that some of the youngsters on School Action Plus in particular, but School Action as well, could have quite high needs that require support beyond the age of 16. As well as the concern about rationing and inconsistencies across the country, there is the concern that if the Government’s policy is to reduce statementing, we could have quite a few youngsters who are not statemented but who, because of their School Action Plus or School Action status, have high needs. Many times in Committee, we have commented on the difficulties that will be encountered in keeping young people with high needs in education beyond the age of 16. It is therefore important that the Bill ensures that there is a proper assessment and appropriate support leading from that assessment for young people beyond the age of 16. I hope that in responding to these amendments and to amendment No. 160, the Minister can reassure us about the way that this will be handled.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

We shall deal with amendment No. 160 later. We are currently considering amendments Nos. 44 and 45.

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

I am sympathetic to the amendments. The Government are rightly seeking to encourage local authorities not to rely too heavily on statements of special educational need and to move increasingly towards School Action and School Action Plus. Clearly that leaves open the risk that were the provision to be specified only in terms of those with statements of special educational need, those on the autistic spectrum and others might lose out. I hope that if the Government cannot support the amendment, my hon. Friend the Minister can at least reassure the Committee that there will be other ways in which the needs of those in the relevant age group who do not qualify for a statement of educational needs can none the less be met.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Under the clause as it stands, a local education authority is under a duty to arrange for a learning difficulty assessment for young people with a statement of special educational needs during their last year of compulsory schooling. The duty also covers statemented young people who stay on at school after the end of compulsory schooling. The duty applies where the authority believes that the person will leave school at the end of that year to receive post-16 education or training.

The amendment would extend the duty to include young people who are being supported through School Action and School Action Plus. Let me explain what these terms mean. Under the SEN code of practice, if a child’s needs are not severe or complex enough to justify a statement, their special educational needs are met at School Action or School Action Plus. At School Action, the child’s special educational needs are met entirely out of the school’s resources. At School Action Plus, the child’s needs will mainly be met out of the school’s own resources, but the school will also receive some outside help, for example advice from the local authority’s educational psychologists.

Even though young people who receive support though School Action, or School Action Plus are not covered by local authorities’ duty to arrange an assessment, the local authority has the power to arrange one. There will be many instances where it will be appropriate for young people who have been supported by School Action or School Action Plus to receive an assessment. Where a young person would clearly benefit from an assessment, the local authority will be expected to arrange one. This will be monitored through performance management systems, and if it is clear that a local authority is not exercising its power appropriately, it could be legally challenged. In line with our expectation, we will confirm in statutory guidance that every young person who would benefit from a learning difficulty assessment should receive one.

That is true whether the young person has a statement of SEN or so forth and falls into the group to which the duty to provide an assessment applies, or whether they are supported through School Action or School Action Plus and so fall into the group to which the power to provide an assessment applies. We therefore expect young people with severe or complex needs to receive an assessment whether they have a statement of SEN or not.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Why is one a duty and one simply an expectation?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am just about to address that very point, about which I thought the hon. Gentleman, being an intelligent and perspicacious individual, would ask me.

I do not believe it is the right course of action to compel local authorities to arrange learning difficulty assessments for every young person supported through School Action or School Action Plus. Special educational needs cover a wide span of difficulties; those needs may be specific to the demands of a school environment, and be no longer directly relevant when a young person moves into further education, training or higher education.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

The Minister will acknowledge that there is an inevitable link between the budgetary constraints on local authorities and the provision of services for children with special needs. Sixteen or 17-year-olds who are on the autistic disorder spectrum, who may face moving on from their familiar school environment to a new, college environment, may not respond well to change. They will need a lot of support, but there may be cases where the local education authority simply does not have the funding to give that support. Will additional funding for local education authorities accompany the requirement, so that they can fulfil their duties toward 16 and 17-year-olds with needs of particular support?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As the hon. Lady says, it is important that vulnerable young people have the support they need, particularly those on the autism spectrum, for whom that transition may be difficult. On the question of resources, I cannot give her a specific answer in terms of how much, but local authorities have delegated special educational needs funds in some areas, so they would carry out assessments. We believe that local authorities are and should be properly resourced to do this. The fact that we are going to specify in guidance that they must carry out an assessment, if it is appropriate on a case-by-case basis, reflects how important we think it is that local authorities find the resources needed.

It is not in the best interests of a young person or a good use of an authority’s resources to compel the authority to arrange an assessment when one is not necessary. Instead, the decision should be made on a case-by-case basis, with the local authority making the decision in partnership with the young person. In particular, the young person’s personal adviser from Connexions should hold the ring of deciding, with the young person, their parents and their school, whether an assessment is required and whether not to carry out the assessment would be in contravention of the statutory guidance that we will have issued to the local authority.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

The Minister is surely right to say that there may be some youngsters who will not need support post-16. However, as the amendment focuses on assessment, can he explain why, in his view, there is no need to make the assessment itself, which could conclude that support is not then required?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Assessments are ongoing. There is the compulsory assessment at the end of the compulsory schooling set out in the clause and the extension beyond, so that there would be considerable understanding of what needs there are on the part of the young person, their parents, the school or other learning institution and the Connexions personal adviser. Assessments continue to be carried out for young people. The power is discretionary but it is a discretion that we would expect to be exercised in favour of those who would benefit. Not all may benefit, so it is right that, where an assessment is considered unnecessary, a local authority will not be compelled to do one.

In many ways I do not think there is much difference between us. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has said we should proceed on a case-by-case basis. There is considerable understanding of the needs of the young people who are on School Action or School Action Plus; and, as I have said, if a young person would benefit from an assessment we will be saying to local authorities through the statutory guidance route that they should carry one out. I do not think there is a difference between us and I hope, on that basis, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I remain unconvinced by the explanation of the difference between the needs of a child who does qualify for a statement of special educational needs and one who is subject to the School Action and School Action Plus programmes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster said, given the current budgetary constraints on many local authorities, there is a deep reluctance in some authorities to award many statements. In the past, children who are now on School Action or School Action Plus would probably have been issued with a statement of special educational needs. The Minister says not all children who are on School Action or School Action Plus would benefit from assessment, but how do we know that unless an assessment is carried out? I believe the amendment is important and I would like to test the opinion of the Committee and press it to a Division.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 57, in clause 65, page 35, line 13, at end insert—

‘(2A) If a local education authority in England maintains a statement of special educational needs for a person and if, during the year, the person leaves school to pursue alternative post-16 education, the authority must arrange for an assessment to be conducted early in the first year of the new course.’.

The amendment deals with people who leave school unexpectedly, perhaps after disappointing GCSE results, to pursue an alternative option, or who carry on into the sixth form for a very short period before leaving, having found out that it is not for them. Those people will not have had the assessment that the clause requires them to have had in the last year of education, as it is assumed that they will be continuing with their education. The purpose of the amendment, therefore, is to add a new subsection (2A) to proposed new section 139A of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 providing that an assessment should be arranged for them. That is an appropriate amendment to ensure that those children who do leave unexpectedly do not slip through the net.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Mr. Bayley, I trust that, like the rest of us, you are refreshed after our short break.

The clause requires local authorities to arrange learning difficulty assessments for young people with statements of special educational needs who are expected to leave schooling during or at the end of the current school year. Every Child Matters and Youth Matters signal the Government’s commitment to giving local authorities responsibility for Connexions services, and those assessments are currently carried out by Connexions.

There is a statutory transition planning process for young people with special educational needs statements beginning in year 9 and continuing until the young person leaves school. Connexions, and specifically personal advisers, take the lead in supporting young people with learning difficulties at key points of transition. For example, the personal adviser might decide that a young person with learning difficulties would benefit from school-college link courses, or from work placements. Personal advisers also make sure that young people are aware of the various learning options, such as diplomas or the foundation learning tier, available to them.

Carrying out a learning difficulty assessment is part of supporting and planning for transition, working closely with professionals supporting young people with special educational needs to ensure that all the young person’s needs are fully met. In completing the assessment, the Connexions personal adviser works closely with the professional service that has been supporting the young person through school, and other specialists help. The personal adviser also works closely with the young person and their family and/or carers to ensure that the learning difficult assessment adequately reflects that young person’s needs. Once a young person has started a new course, Connexions will also follow through to check that the provision is suitable.

The transfer of legal responsibility for the assessments to local authorities would put local authorities’ accountability for them in law on a sure footing. The Bill widens the circumstances in which the assessments should be carried out to cover not only those who are leaving school at the end of their compulsory schooling, but those who remain in school after the age of 16 but subsequently leave to pursue education or training elsewhere. That might be the case if a young person wishes to remain in school to improve his or her GCSE results, for example, and a year later, having done so, wishes to attend college. Or it might be that a young person simply changes their mind about what provision best meets their needs.

The extension is a necessary measure arising from our reforms of 14-to-19 learning and the proposals to raise the age of compulsory participation in learning. It means that those young people who are subject to a statement of special educational needs who leave school to pursue further learning at any point after the end of compulsory schooling, rather than at the end of year 11, will have their future needs assessed.

The clause requires the assessment to be carried out at any point during a school year. For young people who have very clear long-term plans, the assessment would ideally be carried out in the autumn term of their last year of schooling, to support applications to colleges and other forms of higher learning. That will be set out in guidance to local authorities. However, some young people change their minds and decide to go into further education or training quite late in the school year, so it is right that the local authority should carry out the assessment at whatever point in the year is sensible for the young person involved. Stipulating a certain time in the year when the assessments need to be carried out risks local authorities missing hundreds of young people who make the decision to continue in learning after that point.

The amendment is intended to ensure that if young people with special educational needs in their last year of compulsory education change their plans at short notice, the duty to arrange an assessment applies. I am delighted to tell the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that this is already the case and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary. If a young person is of compulsory school age, the local authority is already under a duty to arrange for the special educational provision set out in a statement. It does not matter whether that provision is delivered in a school or in other appropriate settings, although the statement may need to be amended to take account of the new environment. During year 11, if the young person intends to carry on in further education, training or higher education, they will receive a learning needs assessment.

It is important to remember that the local authority must arrange for an assessment to be conducted at some time during a young person’s last year of compulsory schooling. That duty applies whether the young person has clear, fixed long-term plans or makes a decision, or changes their mind, in late August, say after their GCSE results. In the latter case it might be that, for practical reasons, the assessment is not carried out until early September, but that does not stop the duty to arrange the assessment from applying.

The amendment, as worded and as positioned in the clause, would apply only to young people in compulsory schooling. However, I am also happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that, should a young person beyond the age of compulsory schooling decide that school is no longer the right environment in which to learn and transfer to alternative provision, either immediately or at the beginning of the next year, the duty will still apply. Again for practical reasons, if the young person leaves school at short notice, the actual assessment might take place after they have left and quite possibly are already undertaking alternative provision. That does not stop the duty from applying.

On the basis of that fairly full explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am reassured that the circumstances envisaged by the amendment are already covered by existing legislation. However, the clause as drafted seems to say that new section 139A(2) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 will apply only if the local education authority

“maintains a statement of special educational needs for a person, and...believes that the person will leave school, at the end of his last year of compulsory schooling”.

Only if those two conditions are met will the requirement that

“The authority must arrange for an assessment...to be conducted at some time during last year of compulsory schooling.”

apply.

Will the Minister briefly explain why the duty still applies and why the person who is staying on to the sixth form will still get an assessment? If the young person is not leaving school, I would have thought that the condition in proposed new subsection (1)(b) would not apply and that, therefore, the assessment under subsection (2) would not be required. I am happy to rely on the Minister’s assurance, but it might be clearer if that particular point of principle was addressed, if he is able to respond to that point.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am trying to work out the detail in order to answer the hon. Gentleman’s perfectly reasonable question. The answer is not coming to me immediately, but if he bears with me for a second, I am sure that my swift reading of the clause will help.

Perhaps the best thing for me to do would be to write to the Committee, reiterating that staying on in sixth form with a statement lasts until 18. I will signpost for the Committee exactly how that works in the wiring of the Bill, because I do not have that immediately to hand.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am grateful to the Minister for that promise. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

I beg to move amendment No. 160, in clause 65, page 35, line 22, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

Mr. Bayley, I apologise for my late arrival at the sitting.

I say at the outset that the proposed amendment is probing; I will not be asking the Committee to vote on it this afternoon. Also, some of the ground covered by the amendment has been covered previously in Opposition amendments. I was encouraged by some of the assurances that my hon. Friend the Minister was able to give and the importance that the Government attaches to the position of young people with special educational needs in the context of the Bill and specifically in the context of assessments.

The amendment comes from the Special Education Consortium. I emphasise that the fact that it is a probing amendment in no way diminishes the importance of the subject matter. The purpose of the amendment, which deals with some of the issues we have discussed from a different direction, is to give local education authorities, which, through the transfer process, are taking on onerous responsibilities for the first time, a duty to conduct a school-leaving assessment for all young people who have learning difficulties, not just those who have an SEN statement.

As we have already heard, currently the Bill contains only a power for LEAs to assess those young people with SEN but without a statement. It was the poet Stephen Spender who said that power ends in weariness and duty, but in the context of the amendment, power and duty are separate: power, is only a pale imitation of duty. It is the concern that that power will not empower young people with special educational needs that brings the various organisations in the Special Educational Consortium, including Barnardo’s, I CAN, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the National Autistic Society to voice their concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) and I expressed those concerns when the Bill that became the Education and Inspections Act 2006 was going through Parliament, so this is not new territory for me.

The consortium is concerned because the proposal to extend to the age of 18 the requirement to stay on is a crucial one for disabled pupils and pupils with special educational needs. It is decidedly not the case that all those young people who fall into the category of having special educational needs have statements. We have heard again some of the arguments for that. For example, the Disability Rights Commission found in a 2003 survey that non-disabled young people are twice as likely as their disabled peers to transfer to sixth form or college at 16-plus. That has a significant impact on their life chances. According to DRC statistics, by the age of 19, 9 per cent. of non-disabled young people are not in education, employment or training, whereas three times as many, 27 per cent. of disabled young people, are NEET. Because of this, disabled young people and young people with SEN have the most to gain from participating in education and training between the ages of 16 and 18.

The former Select Committee on Education and Skills considered those matters. We have heard previously how important it is that the support that is given to young people with special educational needs is continued post-16 in a way that it has not been in the past. The direction of Government policy is to reduce reliance on statementing. The guidance issued by the Department for Education and Skills in 2001 highlighted all the advantages of that approach, but the Department showed its concern about the statementing by asking the Select Committee to look again at the question of separation of funding from statementing. We have heard in a previous debate about some of the pressures that may bring some local authorities to duck out of statementing.

Overall, however, there is no doubt that new legislation needs to support and not undermine the cultural shift against statementing. LEAs do vary in their policies on issuing statements. It is not always the case that, for example, young people who come under School Action or School Action Plus have missed out of statements. It is not as simple as that; the process is much more complex. Furthermore, there is great variation in LEA statements in practice. I can confirm that from the evidence that was taken in the Education and Skills Committee’s SEN inquiry.

What I am asking the Minister to do this afternoon is to reflect further on some of the points that have been made and to go away and talk with his officials about how some of the guidance might be beefed up. There is a real concern in the SEN community that, as an unintended consequence of the transfer process, the situation in which we have first-class and second-class special educational needs young people—those who go through a proper assessment process and those who do not—could, in some cases, be at risk of expanding. I know that that is not the Government’s intention, nor the intention of anyone on this Committee, but because those concerns exist in the community, I ask the Government to reflect further on what more they can do to ensure that those fears do not become a reality.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South seeks to amend the clause to extend the duty on local education authorities to arrange for learning difficulty assessments to be conducted so that all young people who appear to an authority to have a learning difficulty, whether or not they have had a statement of special educational needs, are assessed. The extended duty would apply to young people who are in their last year of compulsory schooling or who are over this age but not yet 25 and are expected to undertake further education, training or higher education.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on consistently championing the cause of young people with special educational needs. Earlier this month at departmental questions, he pressed my ministerial colleagues and me on what more could be done to improve provision for young people over the age of 16 with special educational needs. I understand that the amendment is supported by the Special Education Consortium.

As I set out in an earlier discussion, I do not think that it is in the best interests of all young people with learning difficulties to put them through a formal assessment automatically, when one might not be necessary. Obviously, I will reflect on what my hon. Friend has been saying and discuss it with ministerial colleagues. We do not want the two-tierism that he and some others fear in which different individuals get different treatment.

Children who are the subject of a statement of special educational needs have the most severe and complex needs. Therefore, it is right that the local authority has a duty to carry out a learning difficulty assessment when they leave school if they are moving into further education, training or higher education. However, even though young people with learning difficulties but without an SEN statement are not covered by the duty, the local authority has the power to arrange for such a assessment. There will be many instances in which it will be appropriate for such young people to receive an assessment, and where a young person would clearly benefit, the local authority would be expected to arrange for an assessment using that power.

Local authorities could be legally challenged if there is an unreasonable failure to exercise the power to arrange for an assessment that the clause gives them. We will issue statutory guidance to support local authorities in their decision making in this area. In effect, we will have something that feels a lot like a duty and a power but is judged on a case-by-case basis and with the sort of flexibility that some hon. Members on the Committee would want. I do not believe that it is right that we should compel assessment for every person. It is right that we should take a case-by-case approach.

On the basis of what I have said and my promise to continue to listen to the arguments and discuss them with my noble Friend Lord Adonis, who is responsible for such matters within the Department, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment.

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

I am reassured by what my hon. Friend the Minister has said. On the basis of the assurances that he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 66

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 58, in clause 66, page 37, line 9, leave out from ‘manner’ to end of line 16.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 46, in clause 66, page 37, line 12, leave out from ‘concerned’ to end of line 16.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

We are back to where we left off this morning, discussing careers education. Clause 66 amends part 7 of the Education Act 1997, which requires state schools to provide all pupils with a programme of careers education, appropriate information and up-to-date reference materials related to career options. Section 44 of the 1997 Act requires schools to provide access to external careers advisers to provide careers advice and guidance to pupils.

Clause 66(2) requires all secondary schools to present careers information in an “impartial manner” and to provide careers advice that is in the “best interests” of the pupil, and not to promote the interests of the school or of “other persons or institutions” in a way that is “contrary” to the pupil’s interests. Subsection (3) requires that the information and reference materials provided represent a “full range” of learning career options and not to “unduly promote” one option over another. Subsection (4) requires schools to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State that is intended to support them in delivering all of the above. Those comments refer to the Education Skills Bill as introduced in the House of Commons on 28 November 2007. Those, effectively, are the duties in part 7 of the 1997 Act as amended by subsections (2) and (3) of clause 66.

The amendments are designed to ensure impartial careers advice. As I said, clause 66 amends part 7 of the 1997 Act, which requires state secondary schools to provide pupils with appropriate careers advice and appropriate information of the sort that I have detailed.

Amendment No. 58 would leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed new subsection (2B) to section 43 of the 1997 Act. How can those giving careers advice in schools, many of whom kindly take up this extra responsibility, know exactly what is in the best interests of pupils with regard to their future? In many schools, only those who give up time in addition to their teaching responsibilities are able to provide advice and guidance to pupils, but they cannot always do so with the degree of expertise, and therefore empiricism, that should be required by the law and is certainly needed by pupils.

The legal requirement is that all options should be made known to pupils. The information should be made available to them. Proposed new subsection (2B) states that

“Any such information must be presented in an impartial manner”.

Both things are more likely to happen if we are clear now about the expertise and impartiality required in every type of school and every set of circumstances. That is what the amendment is designed to achieve.

Similarly, amendment No. 46 would remove paragraph (b), because if careers advice is both full and impartial, it clearly will not be promoting the interests of a particular school or institution. By definition, it is likely to offer a range of options, detached from those narrow considerations. My suspicion is that the paragraph was inserted as a result of the Government’s desire for more pupils to take up the new diplomas.

My support for the diplomas is known; indeed, in Committee I welcomed them on behalf of the Opposition. It is important that we do all that we can to ensure that diplomas are a success, but we will not do it by skewing the advice that pupils are given to promote diplomas rather than letting them stand on their merits, with people choosing them because they feel that they are the right option.

There are worries about the future status of A-levels and how advice might play a part in that. Those worries have been broadcast in the media and I will deal with them, perhaps more appropriately, when we discuss amendments Nos. 47 and 48. At this juncture, however, it is worth saying that certainty about the empiricism of advice would to a large extent assuage fears that A-levels were likely to be undermined by a Government determined to make diplomas work at all costs.

I do not want to say more than that at this stage, but I hope that the Minister will give an unequivocal assurance that he is as committed as I am to professional, independent and empirical advice and guidance being offered in schools.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Clause 66 aims to ensure that schools discharge their statutory duty to provide careers education impartially. If the intention of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is impartiality, we are as one in that respect.

Schools should not seek to promote their own interests over those of the pupils, and that is the clear intention behind the clause. As the range of learning options increases in the coming years, and particularly as the set of qualification choices distils down, by and large, to A-levels, diplomas and apprenticeships, it will be important that young people are provided with high-quality and, importantly, impartial advice on the full range of options that are appropriate to them as individuals. Research evidence suggests that some schools are not acting impartially and are, for example, directing pupils into their own sixth forms, where they might not be able to pursue a full range of learning options.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

Does the Minister concede that the existence of league tables sometimes encourages schools to act in such a perverse way that is perhaps in the interests, not of the pupils, but of the school, the perception of the school, and perhaps the career of the head teacher?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

We are talking about careers advice and, in that regard, about choices that are made at 16. League tables, in so far as they are published by local and national newspapers that rank the assessment and attainment tables that the Department publishes, focus largely on GCSEs rather than on post-16 qualifications, so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman’s point, interesting though it is, necessarily applies in this case.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I am not sure that I accept that the media focus entirely on GCSEs. When I was in my previous shadow ministerial role, August was ruined for both the Minster and me because we had to comment on a succession of exam results. I think that he would probably agree that there was far more media interest the day before and the day of the A-level results, when we were both on duty from about 5.30 in the morning until after midnight. That was not the case for GCSE results a week later.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Indeed, the media take a huge interest in broadcasting images of attractive young women opening A-level result envelopes. That is a truism that will continue for many generations to come, I am sure. I am not saying that the media are any more or less interested in A-levels over GCSEs, but on the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about league tables, there is a difference between how A-levels and GCSEs are used.

The clause requires information given to pupils to be impartial and that any advice promotes the pupil’s best interests above those of the school, as I have said. Amendment No. 58 would remove entirely the specific duties placed on schools when giving advice. There would no longer be an explicit duty to give advice promoting the best interests of the pupils over those of the schools. That strikes at the heart of the intention of impartiality behind the clause.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister implies that, unless instructed to do so, schools and teachers will not give high quality and impartial advice, is that right? He suggested that only by stipulation is that degree of impartiality likely to prevail. That is a bit of a snub to the head teachers and teachers throughout Britain, is it not?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Naturally, I would love to believe in the notion that every school will act perfectly. However, as I said earlier there is evidence—a departmental research report, a National Foundation for Educational Research report for the Nuffield review of 14-to-19 education and training, and a further departmental research review— showing that there are schools that do not act impartially in their advice and guidance, and put the interests of the school over those of the individual pupil. Therefore, regardless of whether I would like to believe that everyone will act in the best interests of the pupil over the school, the evidence is to the contrary.

The amendment seeks to remove only paragraph (b) of proposed new subsection (2B). The intention of the inserted paragraph is to clarify the importance of presenting pupils with advice covering all the options available to them, rather than those available only at the institution at which they are studying.

There is some relationship to the new 14-to-19 curriculum and set of qualification choices that we are offering. We have said that the full entitlement that will be available from 2013 to every 14 to 19-year-old of all 14 diplomas plus the new three that will also come on stream and the new expanded apprenticeship options, will not be deliverable by one institution alone. We have always been explicit about that, even when describing only the original 14 diplomas. It is therefore important that we make it absolutely clear to educational institutions that they should not be partial in favour of an institution.

The amendment substantially reduces the degree to which impartiality is defined by the clause by removing the paragraph that makes it explicit that schools, in giving advice, must not seek to promote their own interests over those of the pupil. We believe that the paragraph that would be removed is a key element of the clause, as it makes clear the type of impartiality we are seeking to address. Its removal would have no benefit and would undermine the potency of the clause. I am sure that, as a potent politician, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will therefore wish to withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister is not entirely convincing on the matter. The general secretary of the National Union of Teachers—a gentleman for whom I know that the Minister, like other members of the Committee, has the highest possible regard—states:

“If there is a major educational reform, then the professional judgment of teachers has to be trusted. You can’t put a set of restrictions in there about their judgment.”

He was speaking specifically in relation to the clause and to this matter.

There are doubts about whether the purpose of the Bill, as it is currently drafted, will deliver the impartiality—the empiricism, as I described it earlier—that the Minister says that he wants, or whether it is designed, in its critics estimate, to slant the system towards a particular outcome that the Government want.

That is the view of some parliamentarians. From the discussions that I have had with my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I think that he has doubts in that regard. It is certainly what a number of people in the media think. In no less a paper than The Times, a headline on 14 January stated, “Teachers told not to promote A-levels—Ministers accused of favouring new diplomas”. Again, that is specifically in relation to the clause and to the Minister, so it is worrying.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Let me make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman that he really should not believe everything he reads, even in The Times. Even in “The Thunderer”, they sometimes get it wrong and they got it wrong in this case. The hon. Gentleman quoted the NUT. I would reply by quoting the CBI report “Shaping up for the Future”, which says:

“There is a worrying bias. This is particularly the case in schools with sixth forms which promote academic options above other post-16 routes of progression.”

The hon. Gentleman is an advocate of vocational learning; he should surely understand that there is evidence of impartiality and he should withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

How things change. How we are truly now the people’s party. The Minister quotes the CBI, and that must be taken into account. But I do think that our shared ambition for high-quality, independent advice is best guaranteed by the quality of those offering that advice. As I said when I moved the amendment, it is critical that both the people giving and receiving the advice are made aware of all the options and the implications for subsequent employment opportunities.

To that end, I will go with the Minister as far as to say that I have little doubt that he believes in vocational education as strongly as I do. I hope that by the end of our considerations, he will share a faith in A-levels with a similar passion to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. If we can reach the balance in Government that we already have in Opposition, we will have travelled a very long way indeed. In hope, rather than expectation, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

Just before we move on the next group of amendments, I heard a mobile phone go off. It may not belong to a member of the Committee—it could have been in the public gallery—but I ask everybody to switch their phones off so that the Committee can concentrate fully on the Bill.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 47, in clause 66, page 37, line 16, at end insert—

‘(c) any such advice should include encouragement to study one or more GCE ‘A’ level courses provided such courses would be in the best interest of the pupil concerned.’.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment

No. 48, in clause 66, page 37, line 16, at end add—

‘( ) any such advice should include, where appropriate, advice about studying for a degree course at Oxford or Cambridge universities.’.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

This set of amendments is very much on the same theme. Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 suggest that the advice that is given to young people in respect of their educational options should include encouragement to study one or more A-level courses, provided such courses would be in the best interests of the pupil concerned. So it is a “caveated” amendment, because clearly, it would not be in the best interests of all pupils to study one A-level. Indeed, the Minister has alluded to this, so I will rise to the challenge and say that I am strongly in favour of a vocational route with the same rigour, integrity, transparency and accessibility as the well-established academic route.

As I have said, there are doubts about the Government’s commitment to A-levels, and, both in the Government’s interest and certainly in the nation’s interest, those doubts should be assuaged. The Government have done themselves no favours in this respect, by introducing the so-called academic diplomas. The Minister said in response to the previous debate that “he was a great advocate of vocational education, so what was I talking about?” That was the gist of what he said, but in a slightly more elegant way—I do not want to undersell him. However, he really should have drawn attention to not vocational diplomas but the academic diplomas, which will be direct competitors to A-levels.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I hate to seek to correct the hon. Gentleman, especially when he has been so generous in giving way, but we do not recognise such a thing as “either” academic “or” vocational diplomas. They all will offer both.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It is the tragedy of the Government’s unwillingness to accept the integrity of vocational learning, that, in their view, to have legitimacy the subjects must be academicised. The Government have so little faith in practical competence, so little belief in the idea that the acquisition of practical skills could deliver individual worth and do good for the country, that they have to dress them up as quasi-academic qualifications. I do not buy that any more than William Morris or John Ruskin would have bought it, both of whom the Ministers should see as people who inspired their side of politics when it was a more noble thing than it is now.

The Minister does himself no favours when he admits that the qualifications will not be rigorous, vocational ones, but some kind of halfway house between practical and academic subjects. That is why we have tabled the amendments. If people want to study an academic subject, it is much better that they go by an academic route towards well-established, highly-regarded, already-accepted A-levels—accepted by both the world of work and the world of learning.

The second amendment deals with Oxbridge. That is an interesting subject about which I have interesting things to say. The Minister is a product of Cambridge university. With the greatest respect, Mr. Bayley, I am not so sure that you are not yourself an Oxbridge graduate.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

I am not to be brought into the debate.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am from a red brick university and am proud of that. The university of Nottingham is an Ivy League red brick university, but it is not Oxbridge. Nevertheless, I am more than happy to emphasis that Oxford and Cambridge universities are widely regarded as being among the best in the world. Yet, we read once again in The Times—the Minister has said that he is not a great fan of The Times —that there are alarming misconceptions in state schools about the opportunities that exist for pupils at Oxbridge. It said:

“The MORI survey of 500 teachers was commissioned by the Sutton Trust, an educational charity committed to increasing university intake from deprived backgrounds. It found that nine in ten teachers underestimated the number of Oxbridge students from state schools. Sixty per cent. thought that fewer than 30 per cent. of Oxford and Cambridge students were from state schools. The correct figure is 54 per cent.

More than half thought that it was more expensive to study at Oxbridge, although both charge the same tuition fees as most other English universities, and offer generous bursaries.”

The take-up of bursaries is a problem, however, which it is not appropriate to go into now.

Most disturbingly, and highly relevant to the amendment is the fact that while 54 per cent. of teachers said that they always or usually encouraged their most able and gifted children to apply to Oxford or Cambridge, 25 per cent. of the teachers surveyed said that they would very rarely do so.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Does my hon. Friend agree that among the group at which the legislation is aimed—the 10 per cent. least likely to go on to further education—there might be individuals who have been disaffected at school for any one of a number of reasons, but who are extremely able and if given the right encouragement could catch up and so should aspire to just the sort of course that he is mentioning?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Absolutely. It is vital that we broaden access to higher education and my hon. Friend is a persuasive advocate of that cause. The Government and the Opposition share that objective, but access should be broadened not by imposing curious sociological targets on universities, but by providing the right information and support to young people early on about the opportunities that are available. If young people’s expectations are changed, mountains can be moved. If we combine that with a more creative approach to modes of learning—part-time study, modular study and so on—we can broaden access in a much more effective way than we are doing now.

Amendment No. 48 states that any advice offered in respect of the obligations in the Bill should include, where appropriate, advice about studying for a degree course at Oxford or Cambridge. Much more must be done to dispel the myth, which is prevalent among many young people and, according to the study that I have described, among many others including those who are advising young people, that Oxbridge is for the very few and are not the sorts of places that disadvantaged young people should aim to go to, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster mentioned. I think that this amendment will at least oblige the Minister to consider that. If it is pressed, it could have a legislative effect. However, at this stage let it be taken as a means of doing the former, not the latter.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 47 and 48. Despite what the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said about the parity of esteem that exists in his own mind between vocational and more traditional academic courses, that is not the signal that is sent by the amendment. There is a lack of consistency compared with his normal logical strain of argument.

Despite his mention of William Morris and his interest in arts and crafts—perhaps he should have mentioned Pugin in this setting—I find it rather strange that the hon. Gentleman is asking to put in the Bill the deliberate promotion of one course of study that is open for somebody aged 16. If that proposal was framed in the legislation, it would suggest that that course is held in higher esteem than all other courses open to young people now and in 2013 when the provisions will become law. I have heard him talk many times with passion and interest about apprenticeships and diplomas, which is probably quite out of character compared with most of his colleagues, so I am rather surprised that he is seeking to promote one course of study over another in the amendment.

I have more sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve with amendment No. 48. I would have even more sympathy if he had included Bristol and Nottingham and not just Oxford and Cambridge in the proposal.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to discuss his sympathies, I wish to ease his doubts about supporting the amendment. I remind him that it specifically talks about the course being

“in best interest of the pupil concerned.”

It is worded in that way precisely because it is not in the interests of all pupils to go down that route.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I had noted that caveat. I read the amendment several times, and I wished to support it—we have been fairly consensual so far. However, if such a caveat were in the Bill, it would send the wrong signal to young people at 16 that a course of study should be specifically promoted over and above all other level 3 alternatives that will be available by 2013, when compulsion kicks in.

Amendment No. 48 would promote Oxford and Cambridge universities. I would perhaps have more sympathy if it promoted my own university, Bristol, or the hon. Gentleman’s, Nottingham. There is still a mystery, Mr. Bayley, as to where you went, but I gather that you are not going to enlighten us on that. Perhaps it was York, which is a fine university.

I am sure that we agree that the advice that should be offered to young people of whatever age should be as aspirational as possible to ensure that they aim high and that they are stretched to their full potential. They might not spot that potential in themselves, and perhaps some of their teachers or their own family would not spot it. However, quite often—the hon. Gentleman is right whether he is citing The Times or any other source—young people are held back not by their own limitations, but by the limitations that are placed upon them, perhaps by the community that they come from or because of their family background.

I have some empathy. As the hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee may know, I come from a deprived community in south Wales. My father was road worker and my mother was the school dinner lady. It was considered almost heresy in my school in the south Wales valleys when I rebelled against what was traditionally expected and applied to English universities. The teaching staff in my school had been to either Swansea or Aberystwyth. They are undoubtedly fine establishments—I do not wish to denigrate them in any sense whatever—but if I had gone to Swansea or Cardiff, I might have had to live at home. Part of the attraction for me at the time was going away from home to study at another institution and at a top-rated history department, which Bristol university certainly had. The advice and support that I got at the time was sorely lacking. That was 20 years ago, so I hope that the situation now would be different for somebody in similar circumstances.

We hear—perhaps from research from the Sutton Trust to which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings alluded—that young people can be held back by a lack of encouragement; encouragement that they need if they are to see those dreaming spires that they might not otherwise recognise. Ironically, when I was at school, the only teacher who really encouraged me to apply over the border to Oxford was the needlework teacher—her brother had been to Oxford. It will not surprise people to learn that I did not take needlework myself; I am vocationally self-taught in such matters—being single, I had to be. Seriously, that was the only encouragement that I was given. None the less, I ended up at Bristol university, which certainly changed my life for the better.

Twenty years on there are still some serious issues. We have discussed them, so I shall not go too far down this path, but when we discuss widening participation or higher education in general in the Chamber, we find that there are still some serious issues about the intake at some of our top research-intensive universities. I have some sympathy with the amendment, but I wonder whether it is right to put the measure in the Bill.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

What a fascinating debate it has been reliving the student days of members of the Committee. I obviously agree with the intention—when I judge it charitably—behind the amendments, but I would argue that they are unnecessary. I should say in passing that I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Bristol, West disagree with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, because I had begun to worry that the Opposition parties were joined at the hip on the Bill. To hear some disagreement is healthy.

The amendment is designed to ensure that schools specifically promote the take-up of A-levels if they are in the child’s best interest. It is unnecessary. A-levels are one of the range of options on which the young person would be provided with information. Under the clause as drafted, if the careers adviser believed that A-levels were in the young person’s best interests, they would already be required to advise them of that.

I fear that the reality behind the amendment is that Opposition Members are seeking to anticipate the 2013 review, which the Government are doggedly refusing to anticipate. We remain impartial. Opposition Members have made it perfectly clear on a number of occasions that they are partial in respect of the future of A-levels, so they want to make explicit provision for A-levels in the Bill. I disagree: it is important that we approach the review with an open mind. I will therefore resist the amendment if it is pressed, but I respectfully ask the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw it. Incidentally, I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, West that it is inappropriate to promote one qualification over others in the Bill.

Regarding advice on studying at Oxford or Cambridge, that will, of course, be one option available to the highest-achieving young people and will, I hope, remain an attractive option, as has always been the case. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was right: I studied at one of those two universities. I was the product, first, of an independent school. One of that school’s reasons for being appeared to be to get as many people as possible into Oxford or Cambridge. In relation to getting sufficient numbers of people from state schools and poorer backgrounds into those universities, I think that the ambition of the school is as much a part of the problem as the efforts of the universities themselves to attract and admit those sorts of young people. I was delighted, when I studied at Cambridge university, to meet the person who is now my wife, who was the first person from her institution to get into either Oxford or Cambridge and who had a very different educational background from mine.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I am wondering to what extent the type of advice that we are talking about would cover the advice that schools of the type that the Minister attended give their sixth formers on applying to Oxbridge. It is quite a complicated process. There are many interviews, which need to be tackled in a particular way, and so on, as he will know. Will that type of advice and guidance be given in further education colleges and similar places? It is very hard to get into Oxbridge colleges unless someone has had that little bit of extra training on what they are looking for in interviews and, indeed, the whole process.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

We certainly expect the impartial advice that young people receive from schools and other institutions to reflect both ambition and familiarity with the systems of application for Oxford and Cambridge or any other university or higher education institution, so that every young person is given an equal chance of successfully applying and competing on the basis of their achievements rather than their background. The state-maintained school that my son attends does a very good job in that respect. It works very hard at offering trips for young people to both Oxford and Cambridge to enable them to become more familiar with those universities and to feel that they could be a part of their lives, rather than something that is very distant from them and is for different sorts of young people.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Will the Minister say something about the mentoring that that implies? As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire suggested, children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds often have the additional disadvantage of not having parents who have been through the process. The middle-class child not only has a school environment that is supportive of such an opportunity, as the Minister suggested, but will commonly have a familial link to education that is not enjoyed by working-class children who might well have the potential to enjoy going to Oxford or Cambridge.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It is probably common sense that the more it is familiar and normal for young people, through the experience of their friends, family, parents and teachers, to have accessed the full range of universities, the more their sights and ambitions are set at the appropriate level rather than being artificially capped.

The proportion of students entering higher education from state schools has risen in the last 10 years from 81 per cent in 1997 to 86.9 per cent. in 2005. I am sure that it has increased further since then. The statistics for the lower socio-economic class backgrounds, show that participation in higher education has risen from 27.9 per cent. in 2002 to 29.1 per cent. in 2005. That implies that there are more families who are experiencing higher education who can then pass on that experience and that expectation to their children.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am sure that that is correct. But what does the Minister think about the staggering survey which showed that 45 per cent. of teachers either rarely or never recommend pupils in their schools to apply to Oxbridge? I know of comprehensives with 2,000 students that send nobody, or perhaps one pupil who has parents who are very keen on Oxford or Cambridge, to those universities. But 45 per cent. of teachers rarely or never make such a recommendation and a fifth of teachers would never encourage a bright pupil to apply to Oxford or Cambridge. What is the Minister’s opinion on why teachers would hold such a view?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As I have said, there is more that schools need to do and that those who work in schools should do to raise the ambitions and sights of young people. I do not want into be drawn, or even distracted, into thinking too much about why such a large proportion of teachers in that survey seemed to have ruled out Oxford and Cambridge for their young people. I certainly would not condone it. If it is an appropriate choice for young people, whatever their background and whatever school they are attending, that choice should be promoted as an option for them.

The purpose of the clause is not to prevent teachers from promoting any particular option or to force them to promote any other option, but rather to ensure that the advice and information given to pupils in each case has at its heart the pupil’s best interests. I therefore believe that the amendments are unnecessary as their intent is already covered in the clause as drafted. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

We have had a good debate about the importance of extending opportunity to all kinds of young people and the need to make available to them high-quality advice about the opportunities at Oxford and Cambridge universities. We have also discussed the need to advise them on the right route to take in terms of A-levels or otherwise leading to opportunities in higher education or elsewhere. These were probing amendments designed to highlight the concerns that I have articulated and the concerns reflected by some of the evidence that my hon. Friends and I have brought to the Committee’s attention today.

Having made the point, I acknowledge that it would probably be wrong to put this information into a Bill. It is very specific. As the hon. Member for Bristol, West argued, it might be something that would be included in guidance, particularly in relation to the second of the amendments. I hope that the Minister will consider that. The survey data which my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and I cited are compelling. It may mean that we have to soup up the guidance to schools about offering Oxford and Cambridge as an option to those children whose families would not typically have a knowledge or understanding of those options and who would not historically have enjoyed a close relationship with those colleges.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

All I want to say is that the reason I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment and why I would not consider naming a specific university in the Bill is that I do not want a situation where a teacher advising a young person on careers almost has to tick a box and say, “The law says that I am supposed to think about whether or not you are going to Oxford or Cambridge,” and then they give an answer. I do not think that is the right approach. We need to change the culture, and I do not think that we will do that just by naming individual institutions in legislation.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I acknowledge the sense of that comment. However, we need to reflect closely and carefully on how we can counter some of the misapprehensions that are clearly abroad about the opportunities on offer at Oxford and Cambridge universities, so that we can ensure that all those children with the potential to do so can enjoy the very best chances. Notwithstanding that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

I beg to move amendment No. 206, in clause 66, page 37, line 16, at end insert—

‘(c) any such advice must challenge gender stereotypes.’.

Thank you, Mr. Bayley, for the opportunity to speak to this amendment, which is designed to ensure that those involved in giving advice to young people not only avoid gender stereotyping in giving their advice, but actively challenge gender stereotyping and ensure that young people, both young men and young women, consider all the options available to young people with their qualifications and experience. Young people should be encouraged to consider all the options, both those in what are traditionally thought of as male jobs and those in what are traditionally thought of as female jobs.

When the institutions involved have probably signed up to equal opportunities principles, why is it necessary to challenge gender stereotypes? The Committee has heard evidence from the further education sector that, in some schools, there can be a tendency to push the type of courses provided by that school; indeed, we have been debating that precise point just now. That may happen even though it may not be in the best interests of the pupils.

I think that there are two reasons why that happens. It may be a conscious effort to boost the numbers in the school, so that people stay on in that school and take the courses available there. In many respects, one can understand the legitimacy of a teacher pushing their own subject area and wanting to encourage and inspire pupils. However, to ensure that the advice given is impartial, each institution should ensure that the opportunities are there for young people to meet with and speak to advisers, lecturers, tutors and so on coming from other institutions, who can put in front of them the full range of options.

I also think that this type of academic-focused advice sometimes happens unconsciously; it is simply a matter of people reiterating their own experiences. Those who have only ever been in a school environment, an A-level environment and a university environment will inevitably have some difficulty in talking to young people about the many other options that could be available to them.

It is very easy to forget that it is not just the careers adviser and the careers interview that has an influence on the young person. The young person also comes into contact with form tutors, personal tutors, mentors, parents and other adults in their lives, who will all have a significant influence on them. Of course, it is precisely for that reason that clause 66 emphasises the importance of having information presented in an impartial manner.

Naturally, we are influenced by our own experiences and what we have seen around us. I must tell the Committee that I was quite shocked to hear the hon. Member for Bristol, West suggest that he needed needlework because he was single and that if he were not single he would no longer need to sew anything. That certainly suggests to me that he was a product of that Welsh “mam” who spoilt her son rotten and never expected him to do anything at all in the house.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I am not sure if I should say this. The hon. Lady probably does not know much about my biography, but I would not be marrying a woman.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

I shall continue to talk about the way that our own experiences influence us. It is very important to be aware of the fact that we all tend to reiterate the things that we have seen around us. Of course, that can have very serious consequences for our young people.

I would like to give you an example of a training exercise that I have carried out with numerous teachers over the past few years. Surprisingly, even in recent times, the results do not seem to be very different from what they might have been 20 years ago. In this exercise I give out a CV of a fictitious young person and I ask the participants in the course to suggest what suitable courses and jobs they would offer to the young person. Shockingly, depending on whether you give the fictitious young person a distinctively male or distinctively female name, the list provided by the participants in the course tends to vary extremely. In other words, if you tell them it is a boy, they will give you one set of suitable options; if you tell them it is a girl they will give you a completely different set. That is illustrative of the situation we find ourselves in at the moment. Although we are striving to create equal opportunities, in practice we still bear the prejudices that we have been brought up with.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Is the hon. Lady not confusing two things? Obviously equal opportunities is absolutely crucial, but is it not the case that girls may want to do some things in a job that boys do not want to do and vice versa? It may be that we are different.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

What is important is that all the options are presented to every young person, because what often happens is that young people are bundled into one area or another. Some of the research by the Equal Opportunities Commission suggests that many young women are shipped into placements in areas such as child care even if they have never expressed an interest in child care. Likewise, young men are shipped into various placements in manual work in semi-skilled or unskilled jobs when they have never expressed any interest in those types of work. Because we have prejudices and because we all know that we come from a certain background and we have seen certain things in our lives, it is important that we make that extra effort to put things on an even keel and say to young people that they can equally well do this or that.

Young people will also be subject to a fair amount of peer-group pressure which will pressurise them into taking options which are stereotypical. It is very difficult sometimes to be one of two or three women in a very macho male environment or, conversely, to be one of two or three men in a very female environment. That can lead to bullying and other difficulties. It is important that we send a positive message about choosing options—a message that a young person should choose whichever option they genuinely want to do, rather than something that merely reflects other people’s expectations. Just as we want young people to aim high, we want them to challenge some of the stereotypes that they have been brought up with. As the clause requires, we want to give pupils the advice which will promote their best interests.

The problem is that so many people influence young people. It is not just careers advisers. There is a training issue here for the many adults who are in various ways involved with the 16 to 18-year-old group, including the various support agencies and the people in both the educational world and the voluntary sector, to make sure that we try to combat gender stereotyping.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Does the hon. Lady share my view that we should be optimistic about this problem? When I joined KPMG in 1984, there was one woman partner out of several hundred partners. Now at that firm, just 23 years later, the majority of new trainee chartered accountants are women and there are thousands of female partners at KPMG. That is the continuing trend. I am therefore optimistic about the future, though I share the hon. Lady’s concerns.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

If we are going to reminisce on our own experiences as we seem to have been doing in this Committee, I would say that at the institution I attended, when I attended it, only one fifth of the places available there were open to women. We have come a very long way. In many respects the progress has been made largely in white collar areas of work. Where we are really falling down is on what one might call the more industrial side, the trade side, or the more working-class side, where there tends to be far more pressure on young people to conform to stereotypes, and where there is far less confidence to break through the barriers. I think that is why, particularly in respect of the 16 to 18-year-olds we have been talking about, we really need to push the boat out and challenge gender stereotypes.

I am talking about the young women who do not have the confidence to say, “I am as good as any man,” or—for a man looking at a more female-type job—“I can do this just as well as a woman.” It is very important that we give them those opportunities, and that we do not just say, “Oh well, what do we do with this one? Let’s shove her into this option, because that is what we have done with girls before.” That is what I think we are trying to challenge in the Bill and in this clause in particular. It is a serious issue, which affects not only the choices young people start off with, but their whole life, because so much of our pay structures are clearly linked to initial options that people take in courses and jobs.

We have had equal pay legislation for some time, but we are still seeing the problem of an enormous pay gap, quite simply because those jobs known as traditionally male jobs very often attract better wages than those known as traditionally female jobs. I have, over the course of many years, met many women who have simply not pursued skills, training and careers in trades and technological areas, because they were steered away from them.

This problem has been particularly highlighted by the YWCA, which does excellent work with some of our most disadvantaged young women. It is not easy to be one of the only two or three in an environment, and that is why it is important that we work towards achieving critical mass and give young people proper opportunities to take part in placements where they feel they are with a good mix of male and female, rather than with two or three females in a big male macho environment, or vice versa.

Although we have made progress, it is very worrying that some very recent research, done in 2005 by the Equal Opportunities Commission, has shown that we are still directing young people in very stereotypical ways. For this reason, the amendment is very important. It is absolutely essential that guidance and training on the implementation of the Bill should include guidance on how to tackle gender stereotyping and how to give advice that is genuinely in young people’s best interests.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I find that I jumped to completely the wrong conclusion when I first read the amendment, because I thought it referred to the gender stereotyping of the young people themselves. Having listened to the hon. Lady’s presentation of the amendment, I realise she is referring to gender stereotyping among teachers and careers advisers, which rather dismays me. I recall the only careers advice I ever received at my co-educational grammar school. One day the girls were all herded into the hall and told that there were only two respectable occupations for girls: teaching and nursing. Anyone who did not choose either was considered to be a lost cause.

I rejected that advice. So did my youngest daughter, who is a member of the London fire brigade, and has been for about 10 years. A more male-dominated working environment one could not imagine. She is also very philosophical and of independent thought. That is an example of an occupation which is unlikely ever to attract 50:50 applications from men and women, simply because it is a job that does not appeal to large numbers of women. It also requires a lot of physical strength, which some women could not achieve. We would not say that all men are physically stronger than all women, but it is probably true to say that most men are physically stronger than most women. My daughter is 6 ft tall and well able to do the job. She has survived in a very male-dominated environment. I am the only woman in the Opposition Whips Office, so I, too, am used to dealing with a male-dominated environment.

I was extremely dismayed to hear the hon. Member for Llanelli. I wondered why she felt it necessary to have “must” in the Bill. Would “may” not meet the requirements? However, I started with the bare presumption that it was the students themselves who were limiting their own opportunities by not looking more widely at the whole range of career of possibilities. I changed my mind while the hon. Lady was speaking. I hope that all teachers and Connexions advisers will ensure that all ranges of opportunities are made available to young people, including things that they might not normally have considered. There may be predisposition in the genders towards certain careers, but the opportunities should be as wide as possible. I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the amendment.

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli and to respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Upminster. The gender stereotyping that needs to be challenged is encountered both in young people themselves and, in some cases, sadly, in those who advise them. Others have talked about personal experience; I speak as the father of three girls. I was angered and saddened when my eldest daughter was advised, not that long ago, that physics was not something to be studied by a girl. Frankly, she was in the position—confident enough, coming from a middle-class background—to be able to challenge that and to go on and successfully take a physics degree. However, it might have been very different had she not come from that sort of background, had she not had that sort of confidence and had she wanted, for example, to take up a building apprenticeship. She may well not have had the confidence to ignore the advice that she was given and, to some extent, the peer pressure that was there as well, which stereotyped that degree as unlikely to be appropriate for her as a girl.

Gender stereotyping is often as much a problem for boys as it can be for girls. It can limit what boys and those who advise them see as appropriate career options as much as it can girls. In education, we only have to look at the comparatively small proportion of primary school teachers who are male to recognise that gender stereotyping can cut both ways.

I very much hope that the Minister will give a sympathetic hearing to the amendment. If he cannot accept the amendment, he might at least assure us that the guidance, which will go with the Bill once enacted, will give clear encouragement to all involved in advising young people not just to avoid gender stereotyping, but to challenge it.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

When I intervened on the hon. Member for Llanelli, I had misunderstood her point. As her remarks continued, I found that I agreed with them.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

Despite the hon. Lady teasing me about the teacher at my school who was a needlework teacher—I nearly said my needlework teacher—I have considerable sympathy with her amendment.

In my role, I get to visit lots of universities and further education colleges. When I visit universities, it is very apparent to me that 57 per cent. of undergraduates now are female. The medical profession, the accountancy profession—which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned earlier—and the legal profession will in the future be dominated by women. That is a marvellous thing.

When visiting further education colleges, however, what with usually being shown the bricklaying or plumbing courses and the hairdressing salon, it is noticeable that gender stereotypes are certainly active. They do not usually have much luck suggesting services to me in the hairdressing salon—probably not to the Minister for Schools either. They often offer to wax my legs, which I have had to decline many times. Gender stereotypes seem to have fed their way through into the more vocational courses that people take at further education colleges. If the hon. Lady were to press her amendment, I would support it.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I started my adult life—I remember it well—thinking that men and women were probably more alike than was generally supposed. Having reached the age of 49, I have now concluded that men and women are probably less alike than people generally suppose. That is reflected in the choices they make and the aptitudes they have.

The hon. Member for Llanelli has tabled a useful amendment, on which we have had a useful debate. What is absolutely clear is that the options available should not be tarnished by prejudice. However, we should not be surprised if, even with the sort of objectivity that the hon. Lady wants in the advice that is offered, a preponderance of one gender or the other go in a particular direction. I want to ensure that if women choose to be bricklayers, plumbers, or any of the other jobs that are usually mentioned in such discussions, there should be no bar to them, and we should celebrate that fact. Similarly, if men want to go down one of the roads that stereotypically tends to be associated with women, there should not be any restriction or bar to their so doing. None the less, I would not be surprised if, notwithstanding that, there were differences in the numbers involved in different professions based around their gender, nor would I be even slightly worried about it.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is perhaps what people thought about medicine years ago—that it was something that only men did, and that women would never do?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My deafness is so profound today that I did not pick up a word of that. I am sure that it was extremely apposite to the debate and my contribution to it.

The only other comment I wish to make is that in making such advice available, it is critical that we take account of expectations, which we discussed earlier. It is likely that expectations are set much earlier than the point at which people reach college at 16-plus. They are often formed in primary school. You and the Minister will be pleased to know, Mr. Bayley, that my seven-year-old son wants to go to Trinity college, Cambridge. That is because we live in the fens, and Cambridge is in the fens. He does not want to have to stay in college for hot dinners. He wants to come home and have his story and be tucked in at night. He knows that if he goes to a different university that might not happen. He has already set out his ambition. Whether he can achieve it with our help remains to be seen.

That illustrates the fact that children get ideas very early. Those ideas may be gender reinforced at primary and secondary school. Therefore, even if the amendment were successful and the spirit which inspired it were to be reflected in what happens in schools, there are other issues which have a bearing on the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Llanelli and others in its pursuit. I believe that all those with potential should be able to fulfil it and not be prevented from so doing by the prejudices around gender. I am completely confident and entirely happy that men, because they are men, will tend to choose one direction and ladies a different one. That is the way the world is and the way that I want it to be.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

What a wonderful debate, led by an excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South. We heard the hon. Member for Bristol, West waxing lyrical briefly and, having had concerns earlier in our deliberations about the personal details of Mrs. Hayes, we have probably now heard more personal details about Hayes Junior than he would like to be on the public record if his classmates were to read the Committee’s proceedings.

Naturally, I completely agree with the intention behind my hon. Friend’s amendment and I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important issue, which I have also discussed with the YWCA. It is often the case that the sectors that pay the highest wages, provide the most hours of training and have the best future job prospects are those that are overwhelmingly male-dominated. At the same time, we know that there is an urgent need for more men to enter traditionally female careers, such a child care. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South made that point well. The Connexions service and schools, as well as employers and parents, have a role to play in providing young people with information and guidance about future career choices. As the Secretary of State outlined on Second Reading, it is important that young people have the chance to consider all the options. For example, evidence shows that many potential apprentices make stereotypical choices and tend to be influenced by tradition and peer pressure in terms of the industries in which they work.

The needs of a modern economy are such that we cannot afford for the talents of young people to be closed off because of stereotyping. This is an extremely important issue and we want to ensure that, as we raise the education leaving age, the problem is tackled head on. Traditional gender stereotypes and other stereotypes, such as those concerning race or sexual orientation, must be broken down if they stop young people fulfilling their potential.

However—there is always a “however”—although I agree with the intention, I do not think that the amendment is necessary. As well as requiring schools to deliver impartial careers advice that provides young people with information on the full range of options available to them, we are also using clause 66 to introduce a requirement on schools to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The guidance, which was referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli and for Leicester, South, will include a set of core principles, one of which will state explicitly that students should be helped to challenge all stereotypes and widen their career aspirations. If women want to enter the fire service, they should feel free to do so; it is an honourable tradition. The first female firefighter to die in a fire was Fleur Lombard who died in a fire in Gloucester. Such women, who have provided extraordinarily good service to this country though the fire service, have provided good role models.

Equally, young people should feel free to make choices about diplomas. Next year we will introduce the hair and beauty diploma, which is not one that I will be engaging in, waxing or otherwise. However, some extremely high-earning hairdressers are men and it is a choice that men should think about seriously. I fear that the hair and beauty diploma may be ridiculed by some of our friends in the media as not being substantial in comparison with engineering. That will simply display their prejudice; such views are perhaps also informed by gender prejudice.

In addition, the recently published children’s plan outlines measures to present young people with more exciting and challenging careers education in schools. There will be opportunities such as taster sessions and other experiential learning that will help to open young people’s minds to different ideas and challenge traditional learning and career routes. I hope that this range of measures demonstrates the importance that we attach to the issue. The amendment is unnecessary and I invite my hon. Friend to withdraw it.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

Listening to the Minister, I understand that his sentiment is genuine and that he has already met organisations such as the YWCA that have highlighted this problem. In the light of his comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I beg to move amendment No. 177, in clause 66, page 37, line 18, after ‘“subsection (2B))”;’, insert

‘“( ) In subsection (5)(a) leave out ‘14’ and insert ‘13’”’.

My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and I tabled the amendment to provoke a discussion on when will be the appropriate time to offer independent advice and guidance. By 2013 when the legislation will kick in, the educational landscape will be quite different. We presume that there will still be the traditional academic pathway of GCSEs leading through to A-levels, but diplomas, whether they are the original 14 lines or the additional diplomas that the Government have announced, should have been rolled out nationally and there will also be apprenticeships and other vocational pathways for young people to choose from, albeit in a compulsory environment.

The advice given to young people will be crucial, not just at 16, but at a much younger age. I cannot remember whether you were in the Chair, Mr. Bayley, but in the evidence sessions I asked several witnesses, including those representing Connexions, what they felt was the appropriate age at which to start giving full independent advice and guidance to people who will be affected by the legislation. When I asked Connexions directly what was the main focus of its work at the moment, it said that it was 16-year-olds looking forward to leaving compulsory education and deciding whether to follow a career choice or go on to further study. The concentration of its resources is in advising children in year 11.

By 2013, it will be more appropriate to concentrate that advice on children in year 9 because the choices that they make at that stage will require independent and impartial advice. They could be deciding what they will do in years 10 and 11, whether to exercise their choice in another educational setting such as a local college or whether to achieve their diploma through a combination of the two. As we have said during debates on earlier amendments, that advice must exist in every school in the country.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Government can assure us that the full range of independent advice and guidance will be available to students in year 9, who are likely to be aged 13. That advice should be not just on the courses and pathways that are suitable for them, but on the settings so that there is no bias in favour of staying in school if that is what the school advisers want.

During the evidence session, we heard from Connexions that the main focus of its work is currently aimed at 16-year-olds. If the ambitions that the Government have for this legislation and through their support for the Leitch programme are to be achieved, the career and educational choices that people make at age 13 will be crucial. There is no point in giving them that advice when they get to 16 if they have made a wrong decision at 13 because their pathway in life will to a great extent already have been determined.

I am looking for an assurance from the Minister that the focus of the independent advice and guidance that is provided for in the Bill will shift to a lower age. It should still be offered at 16, but also at 13. I am looking for an assurance that sufficient resources will be in place to ensure that Connexions, local authorities and schools are able to provide that vital impartial advice.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The amendment seeks to extend the relevant phase of a pupil’s education during which he must be provided with a programme of careers education so that it should start from 13, rather than 14, as originally specified in the Education Act 1997. I should make it clear—it is an understandable oversight—that the age range has already been extended in England to include pupils in school years 7 and 8, for 12 and 13-year-olds. That was done by regulations made under section 46 of the 1997 Act: for those who are interested, it was the Education (Extension of Careers Education) (England) Regulations 2003, which came into force on 1 September 2004. That means that section 43 of the 1997 Act, as it currently has effect in England, already includes 13-year-olds in its scope. To that extent, the amendment is unnecessary. Of course, the resources go with the extension of the age period down to year 7, so I hope that that is an adequate answer.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I got the impression that the Minister was about to draw his remarks to a close. I hear what he says about regulations that were passed before I became a Member of Parliament, but could he assure me that there will be sufficient emphasis on that early advice in the guidance that his Department prepares for Connexions or whoever provides the independent advice and guidance, because Connexions told us during the evidence sessions that the current set-up is geared mainly towards 16-year-olds and those in year 11?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

It is certainly the case that the activity of the Connexions service does not kick in until someone has reached 13. It is only at that point that they are notified of the individual’s existence through the data transfers that we discussed last Tuesday. However, the wider obligations for careers education, as set out in the Education Act 1997, do apply from year 7, so schools would take forward those obligations. Certainly, the guidance will make it clear that the obligations in law extend from year 7 onwards. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I am moved to speak by what both the Minister and the hon. Member for Bristol, West said. I think that the hon. Gentleman made a valid point about the stage at which advice is given, which reflects remarks that we made earlier about choices that are made early and affect people’s subsequent opportunities and options. There is considerable evidence to suggest that there is a paucity of advice in schools. It is variable, of course, but I refer particularly to the advice on apprenticeships from the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, which I have quoted a number of times. It states that

“by ignorance of or indifference to apprenticeship opportunities in schools,”

young people are often not given the information from which they would benefit. It stated that Connexions

“is failing to reach a great many of those who need its services”

and

“should explain the advantages of vocational...education”

in schools. It also suggested that

“Special attention should be paid to informing girls about non-traditional apprenticeships and to providing information on earnings in different sectors.”

That was reflected in the debate on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Llanelli. I use that merely as one illustration of the critique that has been made by the hon. Member for Bristol, West and others of advice that is given early, particularly in schools, that does not always fulfil the sort of ambitions that we would want for our young people.

If the Bill is to work, we have to soup up that advice, improve its quality and ensure that it is consistent and appropriate. That may mean that Connexions has to refocus some of its energy—the hon. Gentleman is right about that, too—because most of its work tends to be focused on post-16.

As the House of Lords Select Committee and others have argued, Connexions penetration of schools is limited and, as I suggested earlier today, it may mean rethinking our whole approach to careers advice and guidance in the longer term rather than relying on Connexions. That might mean having an all-age careers service alongside Connexions, as I suggested in debates on earlier aspects of the Bill. At the very least, it would ensure that we give advice that does not preclude opportunities, shut down options or drive people in the wrong direction—all things that happen now.

The amendment may be probing—I do not know—but it is useful, and it covers a subject to which we should return. I am not sure that we have it right in the Bill. When debating these matters this morning, I thought that the Minister was a little complacent about advice and guidance and that he underestimated its significance in the Bill. I have come to the conclusion that unless we can get advice and guidance right most of the other provisions will flounder.

To be fair to the Minister, rather than being indicative of negligence, that complacency may be merely an illustration of the Government’s failure to recognise that the current system for advising and guiding young people—the current careers system—is not up to scratch. Connexions is fine for what it does best, which is providing high-quality and wide-ranging support to those young people who need a multi-faceted approach. I am not sure that it is best at providing high-quality careers advice to the majority of young people who do not need that kind of broad-brush approach, and I am not sure that it is as effective as it might be in the early years to which the hon. Member for Bristol, West pays attention in his amendment. It is a pity that the Minister was not more comprehensive in his winding up, but it is for the hon. Gentleman to decide what to do next.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

First, I thank the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings for agreeing with the underlying purpose of the amendment. I heard the Minister’s assurances—he cited various regulations—that everything that is necessary is already in place. The purpose of the amendment was simply to get on the record the fact that the Government recognise that if the legislation is to succeed, full and independent advice needs to be offered much earlier in the young person’s educational journey.

I think that the Minister was giving me that assurance, although he seemed to be hiding behind regulations that he said would already achieve that aim. None the less, during our evidence sittings, we heard full confidence being expressed in the fact that people are adhering to those regulations. However, we still have some years to ensure that we get it right. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 59, in clause 66, page 38, line 4, leave out ‘must’ and insert ‘may’.

The amendment is straightforward enough. Clause 66(4) is about discharging a relevant duty; the schools

“must...have regard to guidance to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.”

There is a subtle but important difference between “must” and “may”. “Must” implies that the Government will tell schools and teachers—the professionals—exactly what they should do and how they should do it. “May” represents the Government facilitating good practice throughout instead of forcing the great, clunking, centralising Labour fist—that is what I have written in my notes; it is a rather partisan remark. When preparing for this debate, I must have been feeling rather spiteful, which is unusual. [Laughter.]

We are also concerned that, by insisting on the word “must”,

“in discharging the duty, have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State”,

the Government are forcing schools to comply with short-term headline-grabbing policies, rather than ones improving the advice and guidance given to students. The amendment allows schools and advisers breathing space, without harming the possibility for pupils to receive full and impartial careers advice.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

We believe that the duty to have regard to the guidance is vital to support the schools in delivering the impartiality requirement and to raise standards in careers education, which is something that we all agree is necessary and desirable. In practice, schools could disregard the guidance, as long as they met the duty to provide impartial careers advice. If, however, they disregarded the guidance and were subsequently found to be failing in their duty, it is likely that questions would be asked as to why they had chosen not to follow it. In many ways, the amendment is therefore unnecessary.

I wish to ensure that schools are under a duty to have regard to guidance that includes a set of core principles. That has been supported by key stakeholders we consulted on the Bill. Along with other measures, I believe that it will drive up quality so that students receive high-quality and impartial careers advice and information. On the basis of my assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Minister’s fist is never clunking. At most, it is the fist of an accomplished and subtle pugilist. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 67

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I beg to move amendment No. 49, in clause 67, page 38, line 15, leave out ‘contract of employment or a’.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

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

No. 50, in clause 67, page 38, line 19, leave out ‘contract of employment or a’.

No. 51, in clause 67, page 38, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The amendments relate to clause 67, which, as the explanatory notes state, amends sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 to ensure that the Learning and Skills Council

“is under a duty to provide proper facilities for apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year olds and reasonable facilities to those over the age of 19...The wording of the clause makes clear that it covers both employment under a traditional contract of apprenticeship with an employer, and the modern form of apprenticeships with the involvement of a separate training provider as well as an employer.”

The intention of the amendments is to ensure a return to traditional employer-based apprenticeships, rather than apprenticeships based with an independent training provider. We believe that all apprenticeships should be employer-based.

The Government recently published a review of the apprenticeship system, and the Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the hon. Member for Tottenham, and I have already had some exchanges on the matter. I presume that he will speak at some length on the clause, as it is important to the success of the Bill. He knows that I welcome some aspects of that review, not least because it responds to criticisms of the system—made not only by me, I hasten to add. It is helpful that it redefines what should comprise an apprenticeship with a stronger emphasis on mentoring, workplace-based training and, indeed, employer engagement of the kind that I just mentioned. Although some of the detailed recommendations in the review are welcome, my criticism is that it will reinforce the Government’s bureaucratic approach to the provision of skills training. The Under-Secretary, whom I imagine will respond to the debate on this group of amendments, knows that my central criticism is that by reinforcing the role of the Learning And Skills Council and reducing the role of sector skills councils in the management and funding of apprenticeships and skills more generally, the review, like the rest of Government policy, fails to meet the central charge in the Leitch report that we need a demand-led system.

Lord Leitch made it clear that centrally driven bureaucracy must be streamlined if it is to deliver a system that is more responsive to employer demand, but the review means that most apprenticeships will be delivered by agencies rather than by employers. Essentially, the Government prefer a nationally planned, target-driven approach to the flexible and dynamic training provision that is necessary in an ever more advanced economy. We believe that employers must lead the apprenticeship system if we are to raise the skills level. The continuation of a centrally driven, target-based model will fail to ensure that all apprenticeships result in greater employability, which is the ultimate test of the system’s effectiveness.

It is worth elaborating a little on the scale of the problem that we face in respect of apprenticeships. There is a shortage of apprenticeship places owing to a lack of employer engagement. As a result, the Government have consistently missed their targets for apprenticeship numbers. In 2003, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is now Prime Minister, announced that apprenticeship numbers would rise to 320,000 by 2006. In fact, there were only 239,000 apprentices in training in 2006-07, and numbers are falling. The figures released in December show a decline in apprenticeship numbers at both level 2 and level 3.

At one time, all apprenticeships were a level 3 qualification, equivalent to an A-level. Indeed, most people’s picture of an apprenticeship is of an eager young learner gaining a practical competence at the side of an experienced craftsman that is bound to lead to enhanced employability. Usually, because such apprenticeships were linked directly to an employer, people went straight into a job. Although that is still true of many apprenticeships—there are some excellent apprenticeships abroad—it is not true of all apprenticeships. By changing the badging of training, and calling many things apprenticeships that do not match that traditional model, we have risked the brand. That is why I welcome some parts of the review, which begins to address those concerns.

At the end of the day, the problem with the creation of level 2 and programme-led apprenticeships, is that that has disguised the fact that we are training fewer people at level 3 than we did 10 years ago. The decline in numbers in the past year, which I mentioned, is part of a steady decline in the number of trainees in level 3 apprenticeships. The number of level 2 apprenticeships has grown over the same period, but one wonders how many of those apprenticeships deliver the goods or do what is intended.

Apprenticeships are not what they used to be, and declining employer involvement has meant that many apprenticeships are much more classroom-based and have their origins in the youth training schemes of the past. The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee reported last summer—I have referred to that report a number of times—that most of the increase in apprenticeships over the years is the result of converting Government-supported programmes of work-based learning into apprenticeships. All that new training has been below level 3. Lower-level training has increased at the expense of higher-level training. Of the 239,000 apprentices I mentioned, only 97,000 are at level 3.

The essence of our concerns, as embodied in the amendments, is that the Government have failed to provide an apprenticeship system fit for purpose, largely because of their supply-driven approach. The vast majority of apprenticeships are delivered by training providers rather than by employers. Work-based mentor training is often limited. In its last report, the adult learning inspectorate warned that some apprenticeships could be achieved without the apprentice

“having to set a foot in a workplace”.

The bureaucratic funding mechanism for apprenticeships means that, as the Economic Affairs Committee concluded, employers are

“marginalised at the end of a long chain of administration”.

One expert witness told the Lords inquiry:

“There is a key problem for both the young people and the employers in terms of finding each other...for quite a lot of employers, they do not actually know how to really access the system.”

The apprenticeship review is, in a sense, the final nail in the coffin for the Leitch report. One of Lord Leitch’s key recommendations was that the Government should move forward from a supply-side to a demand-led skills training system. The Leitch report concluded that

“history tells us that supply-side planning of this sort cannot effectively meet the needs of employers, individuals and the economy. The Review recommends a fully demand-led approach, with an end to this supply-side planning of provision.”

Consequently, Lord Leitch recommended that

“planning bodies, such as the LSC...will require a further significant streamlining.”

The review reinforced supply-side planning by proposing the establishment of a national apprenticeship service. That service is part of the Learning and Skills Council’s responsibilities, and the LSC will be responsible for the achievement of the targets set by the Government, including the determination and publication of the strategy for expanding places by region, sector and age group, consistent with the Government’s published national plans. Such an approach is not consistent with a demand-led system.

We must be bolder in responding to local and sectoral demand as required, rather than simply working a system around a series of national, predefined, Government-set targets. I am not sure that the Government have even begun to grapple with that problem. The Leitch review recommended a much larger role for sector skills councils, which would be part of the demand-led system that Lord Leitch described, and which I support. Leitch argued that the councils should be responsible for approving vocational qualifications, as well as taking a lead role in collating and communicating sectoral and labour-market needs.

Following the apprenticeship review, the National Apprenticeship Service—in other words, the Learning and Skills Council—will be responsible for determining the qualification level of apprenticeships. The role of sector skills councils will be reduced, and their role in funding, commissioning and managing information on apprenticeships will be taken away. The creation of the National Apprenticeship Service adds to the confusing array of organisations with overlapping responsibilities that crowd the skills sector. The NAS will be responsible for a national information and marketing service for apprenticeships, which will exist in addition to the careers and training advice provided by schools and colleges, local authorities through Connexions, and the proposed adult careers service and skills brokers to be introduced as part of Train to Gain.

In 2001, the Cassels review of apprenticeships recommended that the system be led by employers, with training providers acting only as apprenticeship agents with a clearly defined role. In 2002, the LSC accepted that recommendation but it was never implemented. The notion that training providers are better placed to deal with those matters than employers themselves is fanciful. Under the apprenticeship review, training providers will continue to have responsibility for co-ordinating apprenticeships, which means that employers will be marginalised at the end of a long chain of administration. As an aside, with your indulgence, Mr. Bayley, the review says very little about the further education sector, which is still waiting for deregulation, years after the Foster report, which preceded the Leitch review, recommended that FE colleges be set free with a radical programme of deregulation—a view which I enthusiastically support.

The amendments are essential for two reasons. First, apprenticeships are central to driving up the national skills level, as the current system is simply not fit for purpose. Secondly, although I acknowledge that the Government have taken steps towards addressing the problems in the apprenticeship system and I recognise the Minister’s personal commitment to doing so, I still do not think that they have grasped the core message that lies at the heart of all of the reviews of the apprenticeship system and of the Leitch report, which is that we need to move to a less bureaucratic, less target- driven, less centralised and more responsive system, with employers in the driving seat and sector skills councils, which are employer-focused, playing a critical role.

Unless we do so, we will not get the apprenticeship system that we need and deserve. Without that, the Bill will falter, because many of the young people we want to engage should be travelling down the route through an apprenticeship to employment. I believe passionately in the principle of apprenticeships, and I know that the Minister does, too. I just want to have a frank debate—a non-partisan debate, in fact—about how we can get apprenticeships right. I do not claim to have all the answers, but I am certain that the system must reflect genuine employment need and the best way to determine and deliver that objective is to have employers as the central component in the system.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

I am pleased to be able to take over from my hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and Learners to talk about apprenticeships. The last time I was in your constituency, Mr. Bayley, I was looking at apprenticeships at York Minster. I am pleased, too, that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has come closer to the Government position on apprenticeships since the publication of the apprenticeship review. I agree with him that this should be a non-partisan issue on which we can agree. I set my comments very much in the context of the apprenticeship review, which was in turn informed by our plans to raise the participation age following the Leitch review on skills and the introduction of an entitlement to an apprenticeship place for every suitably qualified young person in 2013.

Clause 67 is a small but important step in moving towards our ambitions for the apprenticeships programme, including the apprenticeship entitlement. Apprenticeships are implicitly included in the Learning and Skills Council’s existing statutory duties, as laid out in sections 2 and 3 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, to secure the provision of facilities for education and training. However, apprenticeships are not mentioned in the legislation, so the clause addresses that omission by making explicit the Learning and Skills Council’s duty to furnish provision for apprenticeships that is the same as the provision for other post-16 education and training options. I hope that everyone welcomes that.

We have had a great deal of debate this afternoon about Oxbridge and independent schools. I am pleased to return to another group of young people who deserve our attention and our efforts to make the system more equitable on their behalf. In the context of raising the participation age, the clause is a signal to the system that the Government are serious about apprenticeships as a route that young people can take to fulfil the duty to participate. The effect of the clause will be to drive the way that the Learning and Skills Council funds provision and engages with employers in meeting the 2013 entitlement. For adults, we are equally clear that apprenticeships form a key part of our response to Sandy Leitch’s recommendations.

The amendments undermine the clarity and intended effect of the clause. Apprenticeships funded by the LSC can involve an individual in a contract of apprenticeship or a contract of employment, and the inclusion in the clause of

“training provided in connection with a contract of employment”

is a recognition of that fact. That does not mean that every employer has to provide training, nor does it imply that every contract of employment must include training provision. It simply means that apprenticeships are covered by the LSC’s duty to secure the provision of facilities for education or training. The majority of people engaged in LSC-funded apprenticeships participate under contracts of employment, rather than contracts of apprenticeship.

To be as comprehensive as possible, the Bill includes both forms of contract, and our intention is to legislate in a forthcoming Bill to remove the legal ambiguity surrounding apprenticeships. The effect of amendments Nos. 49 and 50 would be to remove the duty on the LSC to secure the provision of facilities with regard to apprentices employed under a contract of employment, and I am not sure that is what Opposition Members want. They have stressed many times during our debates and elsewhere their support for apprenticeships as a major route for young people and adults alike. Furthermore, amendment No. 51 would remove one aspect of the clause that is crucial to increasing the number of quality apprenticeships.

Clause 67 provides that the LSC’s role in encouraging employers to participate in training should encompass the kind of situation covered by apprenticeships. That provision will complement the wider measures to engage employers set out in the “World-class Apprenticeships” strategy. May I say very gently to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings that he made an unfounded assertion about workplace provision? I understand his concerns, but I want to reassure him about the position, as he has got this wrong. Apprenticeships and advanced apprenticeships meet the requirements laid down by the modern apprenticeship advisory committee, chaired by Sir John Cassels. Those requirements are that apprenticeships involve on-the-job training; engage a young person to earn while learning, and closely involve employers. As I have explained previously, both in Committee and in the House, people on programme-led apprenticeships are not counted—I repeat, not counted—as being on an apprenticeship until they have a contract with an employer.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) will recall the evidence that we heard from the Prince’s Trust, Barnardo’s and other organisations, and I hope that he acknowledges that there is a role for programme-led apprenticeships for young people who are not quite ready for a fully fledged apprenticeship with an employer. Those young people may not have the soft skills that we have discussed in Committee. Nevertheless, they can get on that road with a programme-led apprenticeship. Such apprenticeships are not counted within the figures, but the young person can move on to another apprenticeship for which they are prepared.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I entirely acknowledge that there are many young people unprepared to take up an apprenticeship because of the absence of skills. Indeed, the House of Lords Select Committee report to which I referred earlier says that there are 300,000 such young people, who often lack core and soft skills. However, in respect of work-based training, the adult learning inspectorate warned:

“Some apprentices can potentially achieve the full requirements of the apprenticeship framework without having to set foot in a workplace.”

Why does the Minister think that the inspectorate said that? If I have got the wrong impression about apprenticeships, it has too.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

I asked my officials to scour the extensive House of Lords Select Committee report to find that quote. We were able to find expressions of concern that the Adult Learning Inspectorate still had about programme-led apprenticeships, particularly in engineering. However, the suggestion that most apprenticeships do not involve an employer is just wrong. The hon. Gentleman will recall that when I put that suggestion to some of the individuals who gave evidence to the Committee, including the principals and the Campaign for Learning, they were staggered by it and indeed they said that they just did not recognise it. They said that apprenticeships must involve an employer.

I therefore think that there is confusion here, and I know what lies behind the confusion. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have sought to ensure that we have a statutory definition of apprenticeships in the apprenticeship review. While we do not include programme-led apprenticeships in the figures, we acknowledge that we need to make a clear distinction between programme-led apprenticeships in a college, which are sometimes undertaken as preparation for an apprenticeship, and full-blown apprenticeships. I think that the problem is confusion about descriptions, but it is not the reality of the experience of our apprentices as we understand it.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

It is important that we clarify this matter. I do not want to delay the Committee unduly, but there are two points to explore. The first is the issue that was identified by the adult learning inspectorate. Let me say, for the hon. Gentleman’s benefit, that the reference is from July to August 2006. I am happy to provide it for him so that he will not have to scour any further. The inspectorate is concerned about those apprenticeships in which there is no workplace element. There is a second, parallel, concern about employer engagement and what constitutes an employer. It is right that many apprenticeships have a significant and implicit relationship with employers. Among the best apprenticeships are those run by Rolls-Royce and Honda. Many of the employers concerned are training providers. I am interested in the Minister’s view on what constitutes an employer and how an employer is defined in that context.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

The hon. Gentleman has made that point before, and I have inquired into it in some detail. It is not possible for an apprentice to achieve an apprenticeship if they are based solely with a training provider—by that I mean someone whose main activity is education and training. Some employers, usually large employers such as BAE Systems or Honda, set up separate training arms for their apprentices. It is important to acknowledge that trend among some of our larger employers. At a time when the Government and the Opposition are keen for apprenticeships to increase, we would not want to see that development end. That is not the same as the apprentice merely spending his time at a local college. The large employer is able to become the training provider because of the financial means that they have and because of the staff that they can employ to do the training. Again, there is some confusion about descriptions that has led some to suggest that one can get an apprenticeship solely by spending time at a training provider. That is not the case. An apprentice has to be with an employer.

The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will also know that in the review, we recommend group training associations, which is something that he called for. Implicit in that recommendation is the understanding that it can be very difficult for small businesses to offer apprenticeships, and that the relationship that they have to have with the learning and skills council is something that they may find daunting or some way removed from their usual pattern of business. That is why we recognise the desirability of the model of a group training association, whereby a group of small employers hand over the necessary bureaucracy and accreditation that go with an apprenticeship to a central hub.

Group training associations already exist. I have visited the Birmingham electrical group training association that provides that part of the west midlands with a lot of its electricians. That might be described as an apprenticeship with the training provider, but such a description is not accurate. It is the training provider working in partnership with electricians in the west midlands. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s points and that we can move on from some of the confusion, understanding that the Government’s desire is to get the statutory definition right, to bring clarity and to ensure quality in the apprenticeships offered.

The hon. Gentleman has expressed concern that a new national apprenticeship service will be a supply-driven, centrally based, target-oriented model. I want to reassure him that that is exactly the opposite of what is envisaged. For the Government to count training as an apprenticeship, an apprentice must have spent a period of time as an employee and have the status of an employee at the time of completion. In addition, the role of the sector skills council in articulating employer demand will be central to everything that happens as we roll out our ambitious apprenticeship plans.

“World-class Apprenticeships” makes it clear that the new national apprenticeships service will work in partnership with sector skills councils. Indeed, the report introduces a set of new and revised functions for sector skills councils, including promoting the take-up and spread of apprenticeships, branding national completion certificates, maintaining a bank of qualifications from which frameworks will be formulated, working with the national apprenticeships service to communicate quality-assurance messages and information on apprenticeships to employers, and sharing information management.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way for one of my rare appearances in this Committee. I do not want to be argumentative and I hope that he does not think that I am being argumentative, but how will we benchmark whether our apprenticeships are world class? That is an over-used phrase. Could we not use more modest language and say that they will be very good apprenticeships? In that way, nobody would be disappointed if they do not end up being world class.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but it is right that we have bold ambitions for the young people who take that learning and employment option. We have spent much of this afternoon talking about Oxbridge; I want that same level of aspiration for the group of young people who take the apprenticeship route. We want to encourage quality and to legislate for quality. We will be able to do that as a result of the apprenticeship review and we can aspire to world-class apprenticeships. Frankly, if Germany and Australia are able to have apprenticeships that most of the world look to and say that they are good, I am quite sure that we can extend the tradition of companies such as Rolls-Royce and British Telecom and set up such apprenticeships as our ambition.

The clause is but one of the building blocks that we need to put in place on the road to rolling out the entitlement in 2013 and expanding apprenticeships to meet the ambitions set out in response to the Leitch review. The apprenticeship review said that we will go further in legislative terms to give statutory force to the 2013 entitlement. The clause supports that direction of travel. The amendments would exclude the majority of apprentices from the duties on the LSC and cloud the message that we are sending to the system. I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is sufficiently reassured that he can withdraw his amendments.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

We have had a long debate on apprenticeships and I do not want perpetuate it longer than the Committee will tolerate, so I will abbreviate my remarks. I only want to pick up on one thing that the Minister said—although I could no doubt debate the issue with him all day and all night—about group training associations. He is right to say that the Government emphasised them in the review. I called for that in my party’s mid-term policy review; they are a useful way of involving small and medium-sized enterprises, which we did not talk about earlier in this regard, but which are vital to the success of the policy. Many of the young people that the Bill deals with will find their training opportunities and their employment opportunities in SMEs. I never waste an opportunity to elevate their calls in our considerations. Group training associations provide a very effective way of allowing such businesses into this network.

We have had a long debate and, in the spirit of the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 68

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I beg to move amendment No. 114, in clause 68, page 38, line 35, at end add—

‘(2) The Secretary of State shall commission an independent report into the funding requirements necessary to enable local authorities to provide transport to enable pupils or students to access the entitlement to participate in the diploma programme.’.

Clause 68 requires local authorities, when they are drawing up their school transport policy for young people of sixth form age, to take into account journey times as well as journey costs and distance. There can be no quibble about that. The real concern is the statement in the impact assessment that says, on page 34, paragraph 6.10:

“We do not expect this change to place any additional cost burdens on local authorities.”

The Government’s argument is that local authorities already spend about £900 million a year on educational transport, funded by the formula grant from central Government and through the council tax. To quote from the impact assessment:

“councils are free to use the funding in line with the wishes of their electorate and taking into account their statutory responsibilities.”

However, the Bill increases those very statutory duties and responsibilities, and it does not appear that the Government have matched those increased responsibilities with increased funding. The Local Government Association has expressed its concern and said in its briefing to the Committee:

“This is a case where we remain unconvinced of estimated costs to implement sufficient provision given the nature of 14-19”

education. The LGA points out that many young people of sixth form age, studying for a vocational qualification, might need to travel to different sites.

Interestingly, the Government’s Green Paper sets out their original thinking on the transport implications of raising the participation age to 18 in paragraph 5.17, stating:

“Currently, in relation to pre-16 education, the local authority is required to provide free home-to-school transport for young people where it considers this necessary to facilitate the young person’s attendance...From September 2008 young people from low-income families will be entitled to free travel to one of their three nearest schools, where this is between two and six miles from their home”.

We dealt with that in the Education and Inspections Act 2006. The next paragraph of the Green Paper, 5.18, goes on:

“As part of these proposals to introduce compulsory participation, we will consider whether changes to the post-16 transport policy would be required, including meeting the cost of any new burdens on local authorities. We will consider and consult on, for example, whether to extend and adapt the current pre-16 school transport regulations, and could also investigate the feasibility of providing subsidised transport to 16-18 year olds who are in education or training”.

However, when one looks at the Government’s paper “Raising Expectations: staying in education and training post-16: From policy to legislation”, which is in effect the White Paper leading to the Bill, one sees that the only reference to transport is in paragraph 5.6 on page 26, which mentions:

“A clarification of local authorities’ existing duties in relation to transport, ensuring that, in devising their transport policies for 16 - 18 year olds, they consider travelling time.”

That is all that is said. No mention is made of meeting the costs of any new burden on local authorities or of investigating the feasibility of providing subsidised transport for 15 to 18-year-olds, which is why the impact assessment shows no additional costs to be incurred by local authorities.

That is also why the Association of Colleges has expressed its disappointment that the Bill

“does not strengthen the obligation on local authorities to ensure that affordable transport is available.”

The AOC feels strongly that:

“The provision of affordable transport is vital to assist young people in accessing the right course and in exercising informed choice, which may require study at more than one institution...Local authorities need to take action to ensure that transport is affordable, reliable and convenient for all 16 — 18 year olds.”

The Association of School and College Leaders has also raised concerns about transport, saying that:

“That issue of transport is crucial to all options becoming available to all students...The whole issue of 14 - 19 transport needs to be reviewed, properly managed and funded, not least in relation to its increasingly large carbon footprint. Funding for transport must not be taken from the existing education budget.”

Amendment No. 114 would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent report into the genuine funding requirements that will enable local authorities to provide the transport that will be needed if students are to access the entitlement to vocational education.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I rise to support the aim of the amendment, which is the same as that of amendment No. 158, which we shall come to shortly, although perhaps from a slightly different direction. I think that the Government have massively underestimated the funding that will be necessary to ensure that transport is in place so that the roll-out of diplomas and meaningful choice at 16 will be available to everyone across this country.

We have already seen, with the welcome introduction of free bus travel for those of pensionable age, that that has unforeseen cost consequences for many local authorities in different parts of the country—for example, seaside towns and cities that are tourist attractions, such as my constituency in Bristol. The funding that is in place for that is not adequate, despite what the Government said when they introduced the concessionary bus travel scheme. In those circumstances, we do not want to see a further cost burden on local government.

Despite what the Government say in their regulatory impact assessment, people do travel across boundaries to go from one college to another and they do live and study in different authority areas. We do not want to find that certain local authorities are placed under much heavier cost burdens than others in 2013. I broadly support what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton argued, but I will stop my remarks there as I have more to say when I speak to the next amendment.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I support of the amendment, as I feel that it is essential that the Secretary of State should commission an independent report to establish the funding requirements for the provision of transport. I speak as a former chairman of the school transport sub-committee of Essex county council, in my days as a county councillor. Our job was to establish the statutory entitlement of applicants to free transport. Once a month, the sub-committee used to get in a minibus and be driven around the county to the homes of the families that were applying for free transport. We often walked from the home to the school to see whether it was feasible and a safe walking distance and whether entitlement to free transport could be established. Elements such as distance and the existence of lighting and footpaths came into our discussions, and we frequently crossed railway lines and farmyards to establish that the route from home to school was not suitable to be walked by a child.

If 16 and 17-year-olds are to be entitled to free transport, there will be a huge additional cost. The cost of transport to education authorities is already enormous. If older children are to be included, the cost will be much higher. The provisions of the Bill also encompass special needs children, including those with mobility problems. Education authority budgets will not be sufficient to take that additional burden. For that reason, I strongly support the amendment. An independent report is needed to establish the real cost of free school transport.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

As we heard, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent report on the funding requirements necessary to enable local authorities to provide transport so that pupils or students could access their entitlement to participate in the diploma programme. In many ways, I entirely agree with its aim. In fact, I agree so much that I am pleased to inform the Committee that we have already commissioned York Consulting to undertake research into transport needs stemming from the introduction of the 14-to-19 reforms, including diplomas. That report, due to be published in June, will consider a range of transport factors, including the funding costs of transport available to local authorities, in order to ensure access.

We agree with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton so much that not only have we commissioned a report from York Consulting, but we are also conducting research on the delivery of the diploma in rural areas. It is in rural areas, of course, that transport issues feature more prominently. An interim report was published last November, and we plan to publish the final report shortly.

Angela Watkinson rose—

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I give way to the hon. Member for Upminster, who so assiduously performed her duties on the transport sub-committee of Essex county council.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene. One thing that often surprised us in testing whether children were entitled to free transport was that in many cases there would be an adult at home all day and several cars on the driveway—but it did not affect their entitlement. Will the Minister say whether that will be taken into consideration when assessing entitlement under the Bill?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The matters that will be assessed in respect of the amendments are set out in the clause. The only change that we are making is to do with journey time. Other issues, such as distance, will be included, but I doubt whether the number of cars in the drive will be taken into account.

The reports on diploma delivery in rural areas, to be publishing shortly, will show that it is important to consider access in a wider context than simple transport solutions. For instance, e-learning, common timetabling, peripatetic teaching and mobile provision are existing ways to ensure access to provision without asking young people to travel long distances. However, I have sympathy with the idea of free or subsidised transport for young learners. Some local authorities already provide it, which is another reason for it being quite difficult, in the relatively early days of diploma delivery, to make blanket announcements.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

rose—

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I shall give way in a moment. I am aware that some authorities, such as Cumbria, already provide free transport for post-16 learners in rural areas.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I was going to ask the Minister about that.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am delighted to have anticipated the intervention from the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire.

Of my two concerns about requiring all areas to have free or subsidised transport for young learners, one is that it may not fulfil its purpose in helping the young people who most need help. Making transport free is fine, as long as there is provision for them to use it. However, if the bus does not travel through their village or does not travel at a time that allows them to access education, it is not necessarily the answer. We may need to be slightly more sophisticated than merely allowing for free provision, attractive though the headlines might be.

Also, local authorities are currently responsible for transport for 16 to 19-year-old learners, and it is important that they retain some discretion in how they spend and target their funding. As the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned, we would need proper consultation on the proposals might be brought forward as a result of the various reports and pieces of research that we have commissioned to inform our policy as we roll out diplomas and tackle transport concerns. I am delighted to give way to the hon. Member for Broxbourne.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

The Minister is a real gent. Would free travel extend, in more urban and suburban seats, to rail and tube links, for example? I know that, in my constituency, youngsters go out of Enfield, into Cheshunt, and back to Enfield using train routes.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I want to make it clear that the hon. Gentleman has not heard me say that I am committing to free transport. I have said that I have some sympathy with the idea of free or subsidised transport. That is something that the Youth Parliament campaigns on strongly. I have held meetings with its members, and, as with other matters that they raise, such as sexual relationship education, it is important that we listen carefully to what they have to say. On whether the proposals on transport will apply in suburban areas, we will have to have a model ensuring that every young person has good access to the range of provision that they need to fulfil their duties in part 1, and therefore to the range of diplomas to which they will be entitled from 2013.

In the light of the fact that we are doing what the amendment asks us to do, I hope that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will be happy to withdraw it.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am slightly encouraged. The amendment goes to the root of the policy of raising participation to 18, particularly in rural areas. It is disappointing that the final “Delivering 14-19 Reforms in Rural Areas” report, which is due shortly, was not available before this debate. I hope that it will be available before Report, so that it can inform the House about the precise implications of the duty on transport to and from the various colleges and sixth form settings for young people to whom the new duty will apply.

It is also strange that although the Green Paper, “Raising Expectations”, stated that

“we will consider whether changes to the post-16 transport policy would be required, including meeting the cost of any new burdens on local authorities...We will consider and consult”,

that phrasing and statement of intention is missing from the White Paper. That is a major gap in the cohesiveness of the policy.

I am semi-assured by the Minister’s response and I look forward to seeing the report from York Consulting and the “Delivering 14-19 Reforms in Rural Areas” report. I hope that they will lead to a policy that will enable the new duty to be a reality on the ground.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Perhaps it should be drawn to the Committee’s attention that special needs students, particularly those with mobility problems, will not be able to use public transport and will need door-to-door transport. That involves a huge cost.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

As always, my hon. Friend is a champion of young people with special needs. She makes a valid point again on this occasion.

In view of the Minister’s response to the debate, we will not press the amendment to a Division. We have had a good debate and the matter has been aired. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I beg to move amendment No. 158, in clause 68, page 38, line 36, at end insert—

‘(ii)

(a) delete subsection (3)(d), and

(b) insert—

“(8)

in preparing a statement under that section a local education authority has a duty to ensure affordable transport.”’.

We have just considered the affordability for local authorities of the changes that will be brought about if the Bill is enacted. The purpose of the amendment is to consider their affordability for the individual student. We have spent much time this afternoon discussing the importance of independent advice and guidance for young people to make sure that the Bill is successful. Transport and its adequacy and affordability are also essential if this brave new educational world which we are being invited to enter is to succeed.

The Bill as drafted would add time to the existing provisions in local authority transport plans, which already include cost, distance and the need to ensure that there is choice in educational provision. However, it does not specifically deal with affordability. That is quite different because bus fares, train fares or whatever vary enormously around the country, as do individual incomes. The affordability as well as the cost of fares needs to be borne in mind.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Gentleman is correct. Those worst affected are likely to be in places that are very rural and sparsely populated and where average incomes are low—areas with low-skill, low-wage economies such as Lincolnshire and South Holland and The Deepings. The difficulty is that to access opportunity, people have to travel long distances and often cannot afford to do so.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes an entirely valid point. Movements between different parts of cities are another factor. I do not represent the area, but south Bristol has pockets of extreme poverty and many of the educational and employment opportunities are in the north or on the north-west rim of the city at the M4-M5 interchange. Bristol has the most expensive public transport bus fares in the country. So there are cost barriers within urban areas too.

Once the full roll-out of diplomas has taken place in 2013, it is quite obvious that 14, 15 and 16-year-olds will travel around much more than they do under the existing educational offer. For the purposes of the Bill we are considering provision beyond the age of 16. When compulsion is introduced, many more people will be travelling, whether they are doing the advanced diploma, A-levels, apprenticeships or work-based training. The unavailability of public transport will be a source of constant frustration to many people around the country.

I have mentioned before the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the nearest further education college to Berwick-upon-Tweed is 50 miles away. Transport will clearly be a consideration in his area. Although the Bill considers time, or adds time to the existing list of considerations that local authorities will bear in mind, that might be regarded as somewhat ironic in many parts of the country. I have already mentioned Bristol where, ironically, it can probably take longer to travel from one side of the city to the other than it may take to travel from Berwick to Alnwick or any other part of Northumberland. Time is not the same in all parts of the country, whatever the laws of physics say. It is certainly not the same when it comes to public transport.

It would be a shame if people’s choice was limited by the public transport offer available to them, such that choice was only able to be meaningfully exercised by those who have access to a car. One of the unforeseen consequences of the Bill might be to encourage more 17-year-olds to put pressure on their parents to let them learn to drive at perhaps too young an age, which could lead to other unfortunate consequences.

During the evidence-taking session at the start of the proceedings, and in subsequent information given to me, the Association of Colleges said that 87 per cent. of further education colleges currently already feel that they must subsidise their students to ensure that they can travel to the courses offered by those colleges. The provision currently available from local authorities or from the pockets of individuals is not sufficient to meet the current requirements of further education. The average cost per further education college is a staggering £305,000—that is the average cost out of the existing budget that a college needs to find to subsidise its students’ travel plans.

Various solutions have been put in place in some parts of the country. In my own area, across the old county of Avon and Somerset, local authorities and the local bus companies have put together a youth rover ticket, which costs £420 a year. In London, public transport is to some extent subsidised for younger people.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the increase in the number of people that we are talking about participating under the Bill is a very small percentage of the whole number of young people in the cohort? Any additional expenditure will be a very small percentage of what he describes.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

The percentage of the cohort not in education, employment or training, at whom the Bill is largely directed, is—depending on who you believe—somewhere between 10 and 15 per cent. That is not an insignificant increase in the number of people who may be travelling around. However, not only will more people be caught directly by the provisions of the Bill, but the educational landscape will change considerably over the next few years as diplomas are rolled out. That change in the underlying structure of the courses that people have access to will, in itself, cause many more people than that 15 per cent. to travel around.

I, the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who often says this, all want the diplomas to be a success, but if they are a success, more young people will travel about the country than is currently the case. It is not just about a narrow number, whether that is the 10 or 15 per cent. of the current cohort; it is that many more additional journeys will be made in the next few years, irrespective of what happens under the Bill.

I see that the clock is crunching down on me, but the main purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when York Consulting provides its independent report on transport plans to the Government, it will look at affordability as well as the other factors currently within local authority transport plans. I hope that the Minister will give the same assurance to me as he gave the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton on a previous amendment.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I have enjoyed the debate. Time is not the same in all parts of the country—certainly, those listening to our debate this afternoon may have agreed with that sentiment. I was reminded of a previous Public Bill Committee where another representative of the Liberal Democrats told me that in part of Devon, the sun rises in the south. That was equally bizarre.

To get to the point, I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, West that access to timely and affordable transport is integral to helping young people to access education and training, but I do not believe that the amendment is the answer to those challenges. Local authorities already have a duty to draw up a transport policy statement under section 509(1) of the Education Act 1996. The policy statements relate to young people travelling to school or college. The statement must set out the provision of transport that they consider necessary to facilitate the attendance of people of sixth form age in education.

In preparing the statements, local authorities must take a number of factors into account: cost is one, but the distance between home and school and the need to ensure choice in education are equally important. Local authorities must also consider the needs of students who would not be able to attend a particular education or training establishment without help or support—the hon. Member for Upminster mentioned that. Finally, the transport policy statement must set out any arrangements for help with travel expenses that the authority considers necessary. Those duties should already ensure that transport costs do not prevent young people from attending school or college.

Accepting the amendment would not solve the problem of the absence of transport infrastructure. That is important to ensure that people access education provision, which we are all seeking to do. Cost is not the only factor that we should bear in mind. Beyond the reassurances that I gave on the previous amendment on the work that we are already doing to inform policy on the matter, let me say that affordability and cost are factors in the work that York Consulting is carrying out. I shall not dwell on the technical issues raised by the amendment about how to define affordable transport.

The Learning and Skills Council makes £32 million available through learner support hardship funds to colleges and school sixth forms for that age group. Around 35 per cent.—more than a third—of that funding is used to help individual students who have particular difficulty meeting the cost of transport. The LSC also offers, as we know, support to that age group through the education maintenance allowance. That is not specifically aimed at transport—far from it—but households and students can receive up to £30 a week from the EMA. An element of that might be used toward transport costs, but it would not be reasonable to expect a young person to use all of it for those costs. It is certainly worth bearing in mind that important Government innovation.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I certainly supported the introduction of the EMA but, as I understand it, it was meant to be an incentive to people to participate in education rather than to meet transport costs. If the Minister thinks that everything is okay at the moment and that no further work needs to be done, why does he think that 87 per cent. of colleges feel the need to subsidise their students’ transportation costs?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am not necessarily saying that everything is completely rosy and we have commissioned further work on the matter. Various obligations and duties are placed on local authorities by the Education Act 1996 and others in respect of learner support, as I said, so that people can access transport. Those powers will be used, but we clearly have more work to do on cost levels, what is affordable, and what is the right form of transport, if we are going to succeed in the policy aim of raising participation. The crucial thing is the powers, which are set out in the 1996 Act, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say. I am not sure what my unspecified hon. Friend meant when he said that the sun sets or rises or whatever it was in the south. That seems to be rather a bizarre statement.

I said that time and distance were not the same. We cannot have an exact equation in all parts of the country because travelling a short distance in the city of Bristol may take longer than travelling a long distance in a rural area. Those things are not as simple as they seem.

I am not particularly reassured that the Minister takes on board fully the fact that affordability is a major factor for some people. That is why colleges must spend on average £305,000 out of their budgets, which is intended for other purposes, on transportation costs. None the less, we eagerly await the findings of York Consulting. I am sure that we will have to return to this topic at a later date when we have read the report, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 69

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The clause deals with collaborative arrangements for the education and training of 14 to 19-year-olds. The explanatory notes say that it

“also enables local education authorities to set up joint arrangements for co-operation on 14-19 education or training covering the areas for which they are responsible.”

Before I say more on that, I must say that the intervention that the hon. Member for Llanelli made on me about two hours ago, has just winged its way to me via a carrier pigeon from Bognor Regis. It asks,

“Who used to say that about doctors?”

My reply was going to be: a Doctor Who always has an important female assistant, who is usually gorgeous.

Coming back to clause 69, I should like to know whether its scope extends to the new diplomas. Their successful implementation will depend on the collaboration between institutions that is central to the clause. This issue has been raised in the House before by me and others, and I know that Ministers are sensitive about it, but there is doubt about how much collaboration is taking place in pursuit of that end. Will the Minister therefore take this opportunity to say a word about that sort of productive collaboration on diplomas?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

The successful delivery of 14-to-19 education depends entirely on there being a collaborative approach within a local area. The local authority, the learning and skills council, employers, higher education institutions and providers of pre and post-16 education need to work together to ensure that the full range of curriculum and qualifications can be delivered. We said in the 14-to-19 education and skills implementation plan published in 2005 that we expected all areas to set up 14-to-19 partnerships that would be led by the local authority and local LSC. We know that that has happened on a voluntary basis, and there are many strong examples of 14-to-19 partnerships, such as the one in south Gloucestershire near the constituency of the hon. Member for Bristol, West. Such partnerships are driving developments locally.

All areas have some sort of collaboration arrangements in place for 14-to-19 partnerships—I hope that helps the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—but we know that their quality varies. The next few years will be crucial for the local planning of the infrastructure needed for 14-to-19 delivery. We need to be confident that 14-to-19 partnerships are consistent, secure and able to have a strong voice in their localities. The clause will strengthen and underpin the arrangements that local authorities have set up for local co-operation in 14-to-19 education by placing a legal duty on them to make the necessary collaboration arrangements. It will also ensure that 14-to-19 education is an important part of local children’s trust arrangements to provide better outcomes for young people. The clause should stand part of the Bill.