---

Further Education and Training Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 9: 9: Clause 2 , page 2, line 35, at end insert ““which must include a duty to— (i) promote high standards, (ii) ensure fair access to educational opportunity, (iii) promote the fulfilment of the educational potential by every person participating in courses funded by the Council, (iv) co-operate with any local authority as defined in section 1(a) of the Local Government Act 2000, any area of which is in the area of the regional learning and skills council, and (v) promote the well-being of all persons resident in the area of the regional learning and skills council;”” The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks additional functions to be given to the new regional LSCs. It is a probing amendment, not least because the principal legislation is rather bereft of declaratory objectives for the LSC, except in Section 4 of the 2000 Act, where the council is given duties to ““encourage”” individuals and employers to participate in education and training. Perhaps at this point I might refer to the previous amendment. The point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is important. This Bill gives the Learning and Skills Council and, in particular, the regional learning and skills councils, considerable regulatory powers which were not in the original legislation, which is a shift of responsibilities. None of the issues arising refers to the degree to which regional councils are not responsible to any elected body. They are appointed by the Secretary of State to represent different communities in the region, but they are not elected. Whereas, originally, with many of those responsibilities—certainly the regulatory functions administered by the Secretary of State—the Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament, the regional councils are not answerable to any elected body, which raises issues of principle. To go back to the additional functions for the regional councils in promoting standards and access, given that Clauses 13 and 14 allow the Learning and Skills Council to take over current Secretary of State powers, for example in relation to individual further education colleges, it is about time that the LSC had in statute some declaratory objectives. The additional functions are based on those currently found in legislation for local authorities. The Bill proposes: "““A regional council … must perform in relation to its area such of the Council’s duties as the Council specifies””." Under Amendment No. 9 we want to add, "““which must include a duty to— (i) promote high standards, (ii) ensure fair access to educational opportunity, (ii) promote the fulfilment of the educational potential by every person participating in courses funded by the Council””." I shall leave proposed sub-paragraphs (iv) and (v) for a moment because they are slightly different issues. Proposed sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) come from new Section 13A of the Education Act 1996, inserted by Section 1 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, at Second Reading on the Education and Inspections Bill noted: "““Part 1 lays new fundamental duties on local authorities in respect of education, replacing their existing duty, dating back to 1944, which is simply to provide "sufficient" education in their localities. Clause 1””—" now Section 1 of the Act— "““instead requires them to promote the fulfilment of every child's educational potential and to ensure fair access to educational opportunity””.—[Official Report, 21/6/06; col. 756.]" Why should the LSC not have a duty to fulfil the educational potential of every adult learner? It should be noted that the LSC, under Section 2 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, has a duty to secure ““sufficient”” facilities to meet the reasonable needs of 16 to 19 year-olds for education and training. However, at present, there is no duty to work towards fulfilling the educational potential of every person undertaking a course funded by the LSC. The duty for over 19 year-olds is only to ensure that ““reasonable”” facilities are available, which we have already discussed. We think that it is reasonable, given the wide-ranging duties imposed on local authorities in relation to children’s education, that a similar duty be imposed on the Learning and Skills Council for the education and training of over 16s. Proposed sub-paragraphs (iv) and (v) of our amendment would add duties to, "““co-operate with any local authority as defined in section 1(a) of the Local Government Act 2000, any area of which is in the area of the regional learning and skills council””," and, "““promote the well-being of all persons resident in the area of the regional learning and skills council””." On proposed sub-paragraph (v), Section 10 of the Children Act 2004 gives the purpose of co-operation as the improvement of the well-being of children. Why should not the learning and skills councils have a duty to promote the well-being of people in their area? Promoting the well-being of adults can be done through advancing learning. Learning enables adults to contribute more to society, to gain promotion at work and increased income and job security. It can improve people’s self-worth and mental health, and can make them more competent at dealing with the day-to-day difficulties of life that can cause them and their family, harm and neglect if not tackled confidently. The Bill repeals from the statute book the duty on the local learning and skills councils in Section 22(4)(c) to have regard to the community plans of local authorities in their area. The community plan, developed under Section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000, is where the local authority sets out its strategic plan to promote and improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of its area. Why has this provision been deleted from legislation? How will the new arrangements being put in place by the Bill ensure that the Learning and Skills Council and its regional arms take account of these plans? As we have already mentioned, the Learning and Skills Council is on the whole bereft of declaratory duties, so it is hard to provide a framework to submit to regional councils directly based on legislation. Its overall purpose is set out in Sections 2 to 4 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. It was designed in 2000 to be a funding and planning body. The Government have higher ambitions for the council now and communicate their strategy in a detailed letter of targets from the Secretary of State to the Learning and Skills Council. The 2006-07 letter is converted into priorities by the Learning and Skills Council. The most recent priorities are: first, to raise the quality and improve choice of learning opportunities for all young people to equip them with the skills for employment, further or higher learning, and wider social and community engagement; secondly, to raise the skills of the nation, giving employers and individuals the skills they need to improve productivity, employability and social cohesion; thirdly, to raise the performance of a world-class system that is responsive, provides choice and is valued and recognised for excellence; and, fourthly, to increase our contribution to economic development locally and regionally through partnership working. In total, those priorities are probably not so different from those in Amendment No. 9, except that they have not received direct parliamentary scrutiny. Would it not be better if legislation set out the strategic objectives of the Learning and Skills Council rather than it being done in private by letter from the Secretary of State to the council? I beg to move.