Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord De Mauley (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 2 July 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill.


Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My noble friend Lord Elton has raised another well considered probing point, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. Clause 43, through its insertion of new Section 51A into the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, creates the power for a local education authority to require an institution to provide an education for a named individual. I expect that such a power will be used as a last resort—I cannot imagine that any of us want to see the power being used. Far better to reach a situation where all parties—institution, individual and LEA—are content with the position. However, I accept the argument that from time to time this power might be needed. The attraction of my noble friend’s amendment, were it to be adopted, would be to make sure that an LEA looked after its own. It could not despatch a problem individual across an authority boundary and wash its hands of him. We do not want to see a scenario where the individual is shunted from pillar to post as LEAs squabble over who should do what. However, it would be useful to have flexibility in this matter, because it may be that the most suitable institution to provide the education is across an LEA boundary. In that case, it would be petty bureaucracy of the worst kind to deny the person a fresh start because the money and the order-making power cannot cross the invisible line that exists only on departmental maps. My noble friend is right to ask how the matter of money will be settled. Who will pay—and who ought to pay? If a cash-strapped LEA sends an individual to another area that has both places and resources, should the latter not make a contribution? Or could the second area, with some justification, argue that the problem was none of its concern, thank you very much? This is a question about bureaucracy: the principles are not being questioned, but rather how it will work in practice. If the Minister were able to give some examples of problems that he and his officials have foreseen, and the solutions that they have devised, we might be much happier to accept the clause.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
712 c416 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Children in care Curriculum Disadvantaged Age Costs Business Apprentices Boarding schools Employment Jobcentres Finance Education Further education Expenditure Learning disability Educational institutions Free school meals English language Learning and skills councils Dyslexia Local government Qualifications Local education authorities Prisons Scotland Teachers Special educational needs Training Screening Young offenders Wales Welsh language Vocational education Sixth form colleges School leaving Social work Speech and language therapy Academies Mathematics GCE A-level Specialised diplomas Young People's Learning Agency Specific learning difficulties
Legislation
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill 2008-09
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk