---

Further Education and Training Bill [HL]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, and the sentiments expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I should stress that the number of funded adult places in further education has not declined, and that the real-terms funding for the sector as a whole, within which of course we have to prioritise needs, is up by 50 per cent from 1997. Although some adults are now expected to pay a large proportion of the costs, these courses are very heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. They cover a very wide range of vocational and skills areas, including those mentioned by the noble Viscount. We pay tribute to the work of colleges; this is and will continue to be an essential part of their role. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, used the rather—if I may say so—disparaging description of further education as a ““bandage for the school sector””. A good deal of the work of further education, including in respect of 16 to 19 year-olds, is to build on the work of the school sector. It provides essential sixth-form courses, vocational training courses, and a whole array of courses which build on the success of pupils at schools. Only one part of the work of colleges is remedial, providing basic skills courses for those who have not attained level 2 by the age of 16. A great deal of the work of further education builds on that, including all those specialised diplomas referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. So it is important not to conflate everything and to get out of proportion the contribution further education makes for students who have not succeeded at school. Perhaps I may pursue the point about those who have not succeeded. As the noble Baroness knows, over the past 10 years we have greatly reduced the proportion of students who have not succeeded, but while she and I would probably agree on much of what needs to take place in schools to see that standards rise—we are pursuing very vigorously those policies and the investment behind them—it is absolutely right that further education should offer second chances to those who have not succeeded, and we should not regard that as somehow peripheral or inessential. For as long as that remains the case—and for a certain proportion of the cohort it will always remain the case—it is only right that it, too, should be funded. Therefore the notion that it could be simply wished away by the performance of the school system is not a realistic assessment of where we are or are likely to be in the near future. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked me whether our policy on the distinct duties in respect of those over and under the age of 19 was subject to change. It is not subject to change. It is important to recognise the differences in the training and education needs of young people aged between 16 and 19, who have not yet gone into employment or who are on approved training routes such as apprenticeships, and those aged 19 and over, who are already in employment and seeking to improve their skills to go further in their chosen jobs or to change jobs. In that respect our policy has not changed from that which she outlined earlier. We have also established since 2000 with the new learning and skills sector the basis on which we expect adults to pay for their education and training. We believe it essential that training should be available for all adults who require it, but it would be untenable for the public pursue to have to pay for it all. There are some areas where we provide heavy subsidies and others, including basic skills, where it is free, but beyond that it is right that those who can afford to do so should make a contribution. The Government’s job is to ensure that there is an infrastructure in place for learning, but the costs need to be shared between the state, the individual and employers. It is therefore only realistic to establish that the basis on which they are shared differs for those who are adults as against under-19s. The amendment would extend the remit of the LSC, forcing it to secure the same provision and facilities for all those over compulsory school age. It is likely that that would make it more difficult to secure the basic and broad provision which is specific to the 16-to-19 age group, setting them up for the rest of their lives in employment. We recognise that many adults need a second chance after the age of 19, and that they need to return to education and/or training to improve their employability and life chances, as set out in part in the Leitch report. Government funding for adults will therefore continue to be focused on those with the lowest skills and will prioritise longer courses to improve employability and to provide a platform for further development. The Government therefore should not be responsible for securing the same provision of facilities for education and training for everyone over the age of 16. That would imply that everyone over that age was entitled to the kind of high-resource, broad provision we currently offer to 16 to 19 year-olds, and we simply do not believe that to be a realistic proposition. Clause 5 was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. We believe it right to remove the statutory requirement for the Learning and Skills Council to establish an adult learning committee and a young people’s learning committee, as it was required to do under the 2000 Act. Clause 5 gives the LSC the flexibility to respond more effectively to the needs of learners, both adults and young people, and those of employers and communities. However, paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 3 to the Learning and Skills Act 2000, which gives the LSC the power to establish such committees ““as it thinks fit”” will remain part of the Act. I can assure the Committee that the LSC intends under this existing power to set up committees to establish a single group advising it on the needs of young learners, adults and the workforce as a whole. We are seeking to strengthen the voice of learners, which is crucial in this regard. Clause 7 makes new provision for the LSC, in exercising its functions, to have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State about consultation with learners. In addition, the LSC is already working at a national level with the newly established national learner council. It is an integral part of the LSC’s business to listen and respond to the views of learners at all levels, but we do not believe it is necessary for it to have separate committees for young people and adults to fulfil that function. Clause 5 gives the council the flexibility it needs to exercise its role effectively in the context of the challenges it faces.