---

Further Education and Training Bill [HL]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, called a ““damp squib Bill””, which is turning out to be much more contentious than the Government thought it would be. As the Minister said, the skills challenge for the UK is enormous—I think that we all agree on that. But we have heard tonight from the representatives of 10 fine higher education institutions about their serious concerns with regard to Clause 19. I must be almost unique in this House tonight in not having to declare an interest in either a higher or further education institution. But why did the Government feel it necessary to publish a Bill on further education a week before a major government-sponsored report on the same subject? Having looked at the Bill, we on these Benches have come to the conclusion that there is no need for it now. There is no need to rush into these measures. It would have been much wiser to wait, for reasons that have been expressed all over the House today. The Leitch report has a number of important objectives for the UK to achieve by 2020, many of which will have to be achieved by our schools, underpinning as they do any attempt to lure young people and adults into further education and training. It is schools that must achieve 95 per cent of adults having basic literacy and numeracy. The reading recovery programme, which has recently been extended from a pilot scheme to a much wider programme, is a very welcome move in that direction. Without it I do not believe that we have a chance of reaching the Leitch target. The children who really struggle with reading are often those with particular learning difficulties, who need the expertise of a highly trained teacher to sort them out. That may be expensive in the short term but it is very cost effective in the long term. The second Leitch objective of exceeding 90 per cent of adults qualified to at least level 2—an increase from 69 per cent in 2005—will also be achieved in major part by schools, although some of it will be achieved by or in close co-operation with FE colleges, especially when the new national diplomas come in during 2008. That is why the Chancellor’s announcement last week of more money for schools was so welcome. I am afraid that I have not had time to study how much of it is money already announced previously, but I would not be at all surprised if some of it was. What a pity that the funding gap between schools’ sixth forms and colleges was not addressed, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Sharp. The Leitch report is an important basis for policy development. Structural change should follow policy development, not precede it; so why reorganise the LSCs now before taking into account the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Leitch. The watchwords of this Government seem to be, ““When in doubt, legislate””. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, expressed concern about whether the LSC will be fit for purpose. The Bill gives the LSC a duty to promote diversity, but this is more about diversity in the type of provider than anything else. Diversity in curriculum offering is much more important than diversity in where and in what type of institution someone studies. In this situation, it is more important for colleges to concentrate on working with schools to deliver the new 14 to 16 diplomas and then the 14 to 19 diplomas on time than trying to become universities. The changes in this Bill will have a major effect on the ability of young people with disabilities and special needs to access training and skills, as a number of noble Lords said, beginning with the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston. Already at 16 young disabled people are twice as likely not to be in any form of work or training as their non-disabled peers—and that number seems to be rising. Disabled people are twice as likely to have no qualification and, in a marketplace where the number of jobs requiring no qualification has halved in recent years, that is a disaster for them. Young people between 16 and 18 not in training or employment are highly likely still to be unemployed at 21, according to the Equalities Review. Although the LSC recently launched its national strategy for learners with a disability, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, the Disability Rights Commission and Scope, which have briefed us, are very concerned that with the radical structural changes proposed in this Bill the new strategy will be lost, with serious consequences for disabled learners. Scope would like to see the members of the LSCs obliged to take disability equality training before their appointment in order better to understand the issues. It would also like to see specific reference made to inclusion of disabled students in the choice and diversity part of the Bill. Scope is concerned about the intervention part of the Bill in Clause 17, which it believes may contravene the Charities Act 2006 by giving power to the LSC to remove college principals and give directions to the governing body. Unlike most FE governing bodies, governors of Scope schools and colleges may be appointed by Scope’s executive council, and Scope is very concerned by the suggestion that the LSC might have the power to remove Scope trustees. Will the Minister clarify that point in his response? Scope is concerned, too, about the duty inClause 22 for college principals to obtain specific qualifications. While that duty is very welcome, can the Minister tell us whether that training will be available to private providers, such as Scope, and if so what the cost will be. We shall return to those matters and to others relating to students with special needs at later stages in the Bill. On consultation, down to what age will the LSC have the duty to consult school children—prospective students—and will guidance specify that it must consult children with special needs as well as those without? On the reorganisation of the LSCs, as my noble friend Lady Sharp said, we on these Benches welcome the fact that the Government have at last acceptedour original proposal that they should be based on regions. But we are puzzled that there is no mention of local partnerships in the Bill. The Bill abolishes the local tier of the LSC, but nothing in it takes account of the need for regional LSCs to consult local authorities while at the same time the Bill repeals Section 22 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, which requires local plans to specify what provision thelocal authority should make for further education. However, the White Paper, Further Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances states in paragraph 7.37 that the LSC will, "““work with local authorities to ensure skills provision supports the local priorities””;" that is, in the local area agreements that LEAs make to support their economic regeneration. How does this translate into the Bill? It is not clear where the link is between local and regional planning. Do the Government envisage that this will be brought about by the powers in Clause 4 or perhaps through Clause 10? Perhaps the Minister will share the Government’s thinking on this matter. This uncertainty prompts me to ask whether there will be conflict between local and regional objectives and, if so, how it will be resolved. The noble Lord, Lord Leitch, placed emphasis on post-19 provision being made via the private sector, yet there is unlikely to be cohesive leadership and planning from that direction. Strategies will be employer-led and not region-led if the noble Lord’s recommendations are followed. So where does this leave the LSCs? Perhaps the Minister will explain the future roleof local government in post-16 learning and skills; in particular, the funding and planning of provisionin maintained schools, the funding and planning of adult education, and the local co-ordination of employment and skills issues and regeneration. My noble friend Lady Hamwee spoke aboutthe reorganisation in Greater London. Although welcoming it, she expressed great concern about the Assembly’s lack of ability to scrutinise the actions of the Mayor. She was concerned also about the lack of clarity and transparency and the composition of the London board. On powers of intervention, Clause 17(2)(d) is open to wide interpretation. How will the standards of, "““performing significantly less well than it might in all the circumstances””" be set and monitored? Why not use the definition in Section 44 of the Education Act 2005 for a school causing concern? It is much clearer. As my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford said, why move intervention from the Secretary of State to regional LSCs if only about half the work done by colleges is funded by the LSCs? Where does this leave the so-called independent college corporations? Who pays any compensation for unfair dismissal if a principal is dismissed by the LSC? These are important points which we will no doubt explore further in Committee. The powers to award foundation degrees are the most contentious part of the Bill, mainly because they were not consulted on. We have been lobbied by both Universities UK and the Association of Colleges, which take diametrically opposed positions. I accept that some of the arguments of both sides are valid. That only goes to show how very important it is to have a period of consultation and reflection. We need to test the allegations being made by both sides and the concerns that they express. The new power sounded attractive to these Benches and we gave it a cautious welcome when it was first announced—until we carried out the consultation which the Government clearly had not done before making the announcement. It is outrageous that this provision was put in the Bill about a week before publication with no consultation at all. Why rush? Why not look at the unintended consequences and take the Leitch report into account before proposing this measure to Parliament? There also seems to be an inconsistency here. As my noble friend pointed out, if further education colleges were allowed to award their own foundation degrees, those would be the only qualifications that they awarded. None of the other qualifications awarded to students are accredited by the colleges themselves; they are accredited by organisations such as Edexcel, the RSA, City and Guilds or a university. I understand that this proposal was put into the Bill at the last minute in response to complaints from a few colleges about the time and cost involvedin getting a degree programme accredited by a university. As the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, said, if it is a problem that universities are taking two or three years or taking too large a top slice, it should be dealt with by improving the system and not by legislating for a still very new tier of higher education qualifications to be delivered by institutions whose courses already range widely from NVQs through to A-levels, basic skills, HNDs, City and Guilds and foundation degrees. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, listed the wide scope of what we already ask of our FE colleges. My noble friend Lady Maddock spoke about the experience of learners and in particular about travel costs. We on these Benches want to put the interests of students, not the ambitions of a few colleges, at the heart of provision, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said. We need to retain and develop the co-operation that already successfully exists between colleges and universities and not set one against the other in head-to-head competition for foundation degree students. In the week when the Bill was published, a vice-chancellor said to me, ““We will take our students back if that is what is going to happen””. The students were from one of the universities mentioned today but I shall not say which one. It has long been the policy of these Benches to give post-16 purchasing power to the student, so we welcome the learning accounts part of the Bill. There are other parts of the Bill which we welcome, too, as my noble friend Lady Sharp said. The noble Lord, Lord Leitch, emphasised the importance of the portability of qualifications, not just in the UK but across Europe. There have been difficulties in getting our three-year degrees accepted through the Bologna process. In Europe, many degree courses last for four years or even longer. Foundation degrees already muddy the waters simply by the fact of being called ““degrees””, although we on these Benches support them and welcome the contribution they make to giving young people access to higher education. However, more than half of students taking foundation degrees already go on to take full honours degrees. That does not indicate to me that there is really any barrier to a student taking a university-accredited foundation degree in a college and going on to an honours degree in a university. I do not agree with the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, about that; I cannot see it happening. So why not leave well alone? Why rock the boat, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, asked? There is a very great danger of upsetting the balance of co-operation and competition between universities and colleges. Only a few colleges may currently be showing interest in getting accreditation to award their own degrees, but I agree with the noble Lord who said that such an ability will become a status symbol. They will all want it before very long. It may not upset the current balance if there are only a few degree-awarding colleges, but the balance will be changed very much indeed if they all have it. That is why I do want to whinge about the lack of consultation. It is vital that we study the possible unintended consequences of a measure such as Clause 19. As it stands, we will probably see another Bill later this year anyway, as a result of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Leitch. Why not wait on Clause 19 and consult further? If the Government have to bring another FE Bill before the House later in the year, they can choose then whether to bring forward Clause 19, depending on the consultation at that stage. That would be a sensible way forward.