Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Having been prompted by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I should like to make a brief intervention, which I hope the Minister will address in his summing up. If he does not, we can come back to it. It seems to me that our view on this amendment may depend on what we define to be a “teacher”. I do not know if there is any definition in law as to what a teacher is. Certainly, for clarification, I do not think that we are saying, any more than the noble Lord, Lord Storey, is saying, that everyone who stands in front of a class and delivers teaching should have a professional teaching qualification.
However, the spirit of the amendment is that it is very important that every child and every class in a school, and every subject area in a secondary school, should have a qualified teacher with oversight of the progression of each pupil and the delivery of the materials in relation to the subject being taught. That is the key issue. Certainly, the previous Government provided for considerable diversification of people in the classroom teaching and talking to pupils—for example, teaching assistants and learning mentors. There are many potential uses of people with great expertise in their field, but who may not be qualified teachers, to come in and give their expertise and enthusiasm to pupils. I believe fundamentally that the progression of each pupil should be under the oversight of someone with a teaching qualification and, if appropriate, in the subject area. Seeing the preparation that my son, who is a primary school teacher, carries out and the expertise gained from his basic training that he brings to bear on both those issues—the progression of each child and the way in which subject matter is delivered—has further convinced me that this provision is right. That is not to say that people with a basic teaching qualification should not also undertake continuing professional development. Of course they should and all qualified teachers are required to do so. However, there is added value to be gained from the professional training which people without that training cannot bring to those two tasks. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify the Government’s position on that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lord Storey said about the importance of a high-quality professional teaching workforce. As the noble Baroness said, in some of our earlier debates in Committee we have talked about some of the Government’s plans for improving teacher quality such as raising the bar for entrants to ITT, strengthening performance management arrangements, our proposals for teaching schools and the expansion of Teach First, which the previous Government introduced and to which I shall come back in a moment.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for mentioning continuing professional training. I agree with him and the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, about the importance of that. We have also asked the Coates review to revise and improve the standards that underpin QTS, and we have announced that we will adopt the clearer and more focused standards recommended by the review. Therefore, we are not talking about some wholesale move away from a commitment to the highest possible standards. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, we require academies to employ teachers with QTS through their funding agreements. The decision not to require QTS for all staff in free schools is simply intended to allow the possibility of greater innovation at the edges of the maintained sector. We have done this because we are keen to give free schools the ability to recruit experienced teachers who might have a background in FE, the higher education sectors, the independent sector or in other walks of life, who can bring their wider experience to bear in the classroom. It may be a way of getting—I have seen this in a school where I was a governor—a brilliant mathematician with a brilliant degree into teaching more speedily when there is a desperate need. It may be a way—this point was raised by my noble friend Lord Storey—of getting people from the Armed Forces, who might be able to engage particularly well with teenage boys. There are practical cases at the margins where this extra flexibility might help.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will recall, during the passage of the Academies Act we made commitments to ensure that additional safeguards are in place for vulnerable groups regardless of the type of school they attend. The free school funding agreement requires free schools to appoint a special educational needs co-ordinator and a designated teacher with responsibility for children in care, who hold qualified teacher status.
My next point links with the more general point made by the right reverend Prelate. Free school applications have to undergo a rigorous assessment process and have to demonstrate how they intend to deliver the highest quality of teaching and learning. However, as he argued, more generally they will be directly accountable to their parent and pupil bodies for the quality of education provided. Clearly, they will want to provide the highest quality education both in order to be approved and to continue to succeed. Like other academies and state-funded schools, they will be required to collect performance data and publish their results, and they will be inspected by Ofsted under the same framework that applies to all publicly funded schools, including on safeguarding. As free schools are intended to respond to parental demand for change in local education provision, it will be incumbent on free school academy trusts to ensure that their teaching staff are properly equipped to deliver their particular educational vision.
The core of the Government’s argument is that all Governments seek to innovate. The previous Government took the decision to set up Teach First, which is an innovation I applaud; it was intended to bring about more flexible entry into the profession. I am sure that at the time there were some people who argued that this was a dangerous innovation, and I am glad to say that the previous Government persevered with it. We see this as being no different. It is a modest innovation, it is a permissive measure, and it is subject to the strict accountability measures that I have set out. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Morris of Yardley
My Lords, with respect, I am not convinced by the Minister’s arguments. I agree with people who have said that there is room for people without qualified teacher status in the classroom. They can bring a lot to the school and they have a set of experiences and often a set of qualifications that are not QTS, but which lend themselves to effective and imaginative teaching. I am pretty sure that that provision is in the 2002 Act, but I could be wrong. So we have that flexibility.
This measure causes me some difficulty, and that is why I wanted to wait until the Minister had spoken. Given that that exists already, and that probably everybody here could cite examples of people without QTS who are effectively teaching in schools—we have had a lot of examples already—what is going to change? This is primary legislation we are talking about. It is not sufficient to say that this measure allows something at the edges, a fraying of the boundaries, a bit of give and take. With respect, that is not good enough for primary legislation. It is about laying down what is allowed and what is not allowed.
Secondly, if this really is not much—if it is just a bit more blurring of the edges, on top of the blurring of the edges that was set up in 2002—why free schools? Is the Minister saying that these people have nothing to offer to academies, have nothing to offer to maintained schools? Let us just think about it. We could have an example—let me be kind—of a brilliant person with suitable non-teaching qualifications who wants to and is willing to teach this nation’s children. The only place they could do that is a free school. Why should the Government stop children in 99.9 per cent of the system being able to benefit from that teacher’s experience?
I think the Minister is caught between two extremes. Either it is nothing, so put it everywhere—just say. One way might be to produce an edict saying, “Remember that there are people other than those with QTS who can work alongside those with QTS and good leaders in our schools, and we welcome you and please populate our schools”. Or it really is a shift in the law that is going to draw the boundary in a different place in terms of the qualifications that teachers need. If it is the latter, with respect again, we need more than we have had so far about where those boundaries will be drawn. Saying that it is a bit of fraying it at the edges, a bit of give and take is not really good enough for primary legislation.
Lord Hill of Oareford
“ In section 10A (charges at boarding Academies) (inserted by section 59), in subsection (1)(a), for “an Academy” substitute “an Academy school or an alternative provision Academy”.”
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I do not want to hold up the Minister but I should like to endorse what my noble friend Lord Peston has said. At this time particularly, we need to be careful about foundations or organisations aimed at dividing our community rather than uniting it.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, in some ways the discussion we have had around this matter reprises some of our earlier debates on the place of religion in the school system. We will probably have a bit more in a moment when we move on to the next group. To some extent, we are on reasonably well worn ground for this Committee. The right reverend Prelate reminded us that the Government’s basic approach is to try to operate on an “as is” basis and not unpick things that have been arrived at over a period of time. It is certainly the case that the Government are committed to intervening in schools where there is consistent underperformance, whatever kind of school it is—faith or non-faith—which is the starting point for these measures.
The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in some respect, has been answered by my noble friend Lord Elton who is more knowledgeable than me on a lot of its history and drafting. On the precise point, I will write to the noble Lord and will copy it to my noble friend. I will set that out straight for him.
The reason for the Government taking the position that they have is that we know that religious bodies have often made a substantial contribution to these schools, not only through influencing the ethos and practice of the schools but also in contributing land and sometimes money for educational purposes. In recognition of that role, we think that they have a right to be consulted. As the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, pointed out, this is a right to be consulted and not a right to veto a conversion, which is an important point. We want the religious authorities to be reassured that we will take account of their views when it is necessary to intervene in their schools.
We know that religious bodies have played an important role in our diverse educational system and we value that contribution. We will intervene in underperforming schools, including faith schools, but we think—a point, I think, also made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland—that intervention in those schools will work best when it is done in collaboration with the faith bodies so that due consideration is given to that school’s religious ethos. With that, I would ask the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, the main points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, and my noble friends, revisit many of the issues that we discussed at length during the passage of the Academies Act last year. The current arrangements in place for consultation were arrived at following those debates a year ago and were amended to reflect points made then by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury and my noble friend Lady Walmsley, whom we welcome back to the Committee.
As we said during the passage of that Act, the Government believe that when an academy is being set up there should be fair and open consultation, but we believe that those running the consultation are best placed to determine whom to consult, how, and at what stage of the process. As far as timing is concerned, an academy order is a procedural step which enables a school to convert. It does not place the school or the Secretary of State under any obligation to proceed with the conversion, and it does not mean that conversion is a foregone conclusion. The key point which we debated last year is that the consultation has to happen before the funding agreement is signed—that is the point at which the agreement becomes binding. The precise point at which it happens should, it seems to us, be left to those carrying out the consultation.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, that it is quite difficult to foresee situations where it would not be appropriate to consult the kinds of people that she mentions in her amendment. But as we argued last year—I think it is a point made by the right reverend Prelate—we do not think that we need to specify long lists of people who need to be consulted, and that is a general approach from which we are, across the piece, trying to move away.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I think I understand what the Minister is saying when he says that you should not prescribe a long list, but this is not a long list. It is four of the key groups. They are important to name because we can assume that it is extremely unlikely that an organisation would not consult parents, pupils or staff, but I can foresee plenty of circumstances where an academy group might not want to consult the local authority. I think that the points made by the Minister’s noble friends about allowing the strategic role of local authorities to continue are important.
Lord Hill of Oareford
Whether the list is short or long, the point is that if there is a short list, there will be an argument about people who have been left off. People will ask why they have not been consulted, and then we will have a debate about lengthening the list. If there is a long list, there are the problems that the noble Lord has already accepted. It is perfectly possible to leave it to people’s common sense and judgment. As the noble Lord knows from the work he has done with academies, if you are setting about an academy conversion, you want to do it with the support of local people and the community because that is how you get it off to a good start. I think that we can leave it to their common sense and wisdom.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
I am sorry to come back, but the key word at the beginning of Amendment 126ZBA is “including”. This is not an exclusive list, so whether it is a long list or a short list is to some extent irrelevant. We are not going to have a debate about whether something has been excluded once the word “included” is in it. The key thing is that in statute it would be a requirement to consult the local authority. That is what his noble friends are after.
Lord Hill of Oareford
The view of the Government is the same as it was a year ago. It is the view that the House reached after debates and, indeed, votes; namely, that we do not need to prescribe lists of people, short or long, in legislation in the way that perhaps happened in the past.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
If the Secretary of State received an application and the consultation that had been done beforehand did not include the views of parents and staff, what would his attitude be in making a decision on the basis of that consultation?
Lord Hill of Oareford
The view that the Secretary of State would take is that schools that are converting need to comply with the terms of the legislation—the Academies Act—which requires that they should consult such people as they think are appropriate.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
We have had a number of occasions when, because the Minister is a very reasonable person, we have not pressed to the point where we have got a satisfactory answer from him. This is one of those occasions. We had a similar situation not long ago in relation to qualified teachers. What would the view of the Secretary of State be if he received an application that did not inform him of the views of parents? What action would he take to ask why? Would he ask the applicants to go back and get them? Would the Secretary of State be happy to make a decision without knowing what local parents thought about the proposal?
Lord Hill of Oareford
It is clearly the case that the governing body wanting to convert has to consult the groups it considers appropriate. If people felt that they had not had a chance to be consulted and were to raise those complaints with the department, that would clearly be something that the department would have to take into account in reaching the decision that it takes. It is not possible for me to go through every possible circumstance that one can possibly come up with and give an answer. There is a clear legislative framework within which the department operates.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
I want to press this again because this is not about what the applicants think. This is about the point at which there is an application on the table for a decision by the Secretary of State. I am asking the Minister to tell us what would be the view of the Secretary of State. Does he think he could make a decision without knowing the views of local parents? What would be in the Secretary of State’s mind and what would the Government at that point require in order to make a decision? If he were to say that the Government would require to know what parents think, I would say that that requirement ought to be laid upon the applicants in the way that they frame the consultation. However, at the moment I am asking: what is the Government’s view about what they need to make a decision?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am sorry not to be able to be more helpful to the noble Baroness because I know that she is also extremely reasonable. She will no doubt keep pressing and we can return to this another time. But the Government’s position is that the legislative requirement on a converting governing body is set out in the Academies Act 2010. The Government take into account whether or not schools have demonstrated that they have complied with those requirements, which are set out clearly and were inserted as a result of debate on this Bill last summer.
Lord Peston
My Lords, is the noble Lord going to respond to his noble friend’s devastating intervention on new Clause 5(3)(b) to be inserted in the 2010 Act under Clause 55? Will he explain why she is not right that the one group which should not under any circumstances carry out the consultation is the people mentioned in that new clause?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I was coming to that point. I have not got very far with my response. On precisely that point, my noble friend Lady Brinton raised the issue of who should do the consulting when schools are considering converting to academy status. As we have just been discussing, the starting point of the Government is that it should be carried out by the school’s governing body. However, this approach might not always work with underperforming schools that are eligible for intervention. There may be rare occasions when the governing body of the underperforming school seeks to block the development of an academy solution by refusing to consult. Clause 55 resolves this issue, as my noble friend pointed out, by permitting the proposed sponsor to do the consulting.
My noble friend suggests that the local authority would be a better alternative than the proposed sponsor. Clause 55 relates to schools that are failing their pupils and we think need radical improvement. We know that the evidence shows that converting such schools into academies with excellent sponsors can bring about that improvement. Becoming an academy involves, by definition, moving out of local authority control, so it seemed to us it was not right for the local authority to lead the consultation. It is the sponsor who has been identified as able to transform the school, so in our view they are better placed to consult on its future direction. But that consultation has to be carried out in a proper way.
My noble friend also raised important points about the local authority role in decisions about new and additional academies, such as free schools. I hope that I can reassure my noble friend that what her amendment seeks to put into law is already happening in practice. As a result of views expressed during the passage of the Academies Act, the Government introduced a specific requirement on the Secretary of State to take account of the impact of free school proposals on other schools. In meeting this requirement, the department seeks the view of relevant local authorities. In addition, any group wishing to set up a free school has to consult locally on its proposals. The consultation report is an important part of its application to the department. In deciding whether to approve a free school proposal, the Secretary of State therefore takes account of the views of the local authority and other interested parties, including on the issue of the level of need for additional school places.
We know that in practice, many local authorities are already playing a more active role than this. Some are building the free schools programme into their strategic schools planning and have provided proposers with support in areas such as finding sites, getting planning permission and working out levels of demand. It is the case that we do not believe that free schools should be set up only where local authorities identify that they are needed. The key point is to try to make the system more responsive to parental demand by giving parents, teachers or community groups the opportunity to do so.
We accept that consultation is important. It should be conducted in an open way. It should be appropriate to local circumstances. The Academies Act and this Bill provide for such consultation and I would therefore urge the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
My Lords, I thank those Members of the Committee who have contributed to the debate. I also support the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which would further refine reasonable requirements regarding how and by whom the consultation should be undertaken. I absolutely agree that it should be undertaken by people without a vested interest in the outcome. I also agree with her that the proposed new schools should comply with local authority requirements regarding the need for new schools.
The fact that this matter was debated a year ago when we discussed the Academies Bill—as the Minister said—does not mean that we should miss an opportunity to correct something that needs to be corrected. There are two key questions here: why should decisions on the scope and timing of consultation be left to the governing body to determine and why should a party with an interest in pursuing the objective of an academy be allowed to undertake the consultation? Unfortunately, the Minister did not answer either of those questions at all, let alone unsatisfactorily. His constant recourse to the legislative requirements for consultation, as if they have nothing at all to do with the Government, was very strange indeed.
My questions sought to ascertain what the Government require by way of information about the views of parents, staff, pupils and local authorities—four key groups—when the Government finally take a decision. Will they take a view at that point in the decision-making on the adequacy of the consultation, and therefore on the quality of the information that the Secretary of State has to enable him to make an informed decision? I am afraid that the Minister implied that the Government will require no information on the views of those groups. The governing body may decide not to consult those people or decide to consult them only after the Secretary of State has made a decision. That is simply not right. I think that all of us in this Room know that it is not right. I have some sympathy with the Minister as he is reasonable and he has been placed in a position of arguing for the demonstrably unarguable. I have no doubt that we will return to this on Report, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, am I allowed to ask whether the Minister might be kind enough to respond to the point I made in relation to this clause? Given all the other exchanges that we have had, I think it has slipped his memory.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I am not sure what the protocol is but I will write to the right reverend Prelate.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Ullswater)
The Minister can reply.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I will write to the right reverend Prelate setting out the matter rather than holding up the Committee.
Lord Peston
Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that I take it for granted, somewhat cynically, that religious schools will be biased in favour of appointing and promoting people of the same religion. That is part of human nature and it is how people carry on. I do not need to remind noble Lords that I am not qualified in the law. However, I am absolutely horrified to hear what both my noble friend Lady Turner and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have said about the legal advice they have been given from lawyers, who are certainly well qualified to give such advice.
I have a couple of points for the Minister. First, do we have any data on what actually goes on in these religious schools? They are financed using public money but do we have data on the religious mix of their staff and of who gets promoted and who does not? Are there any facts at all that could guide us? Secondly, if the law is being broken, I am not clear who is breaking it. I would have guessed that it was the schools that were breaking the law but the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, seemed to suggest that it was the Government, so I am a bit lost on that. I wonder if the Minister could tell us something about that as well. I assume that for one lawyer who you could buy to give you one opinion, the Government could buy another one to give them a different one. That adds to my cynicism. Finally, I hope that the Minister is not going to go through a legal document sentence by sentence, otherwise we will be here past 10 pm.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, on that particular point let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I do not intend to do that and am not equipped to do it. Generally, there have been a number of important detailed and technical points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, who moved the amendment, and by my noble friend Lord Avebury. The sensible thing on some of those technical matters is to follow them up in writing and to have the kind of meeting that my noble friend suggested. I would go through it in that way rather than trying to grind through technical and detailed points now, which I would not get right either. Generally, that is a sensible way forward but perhaps I might make a few general responses to some of the broad points that have been made, then I will follow them up as I have suggested.
The Government’s overall position, as noble Lords will know, is that we accept that faith schools should have freedoms to employ certain staff according to religious considerations. Those freedoms are there for a reason: to maintain their ethos and to provide the sort of education that parents want. The School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which was passed by the previous Government, reflects that position and we believe that it still strikes the right balance between the prohibition of religious discrimination and the need for faith schools to maintain their religious character.
As for the general point made by my noble friend Lord Avebury about the European framework directive concerned, as I said I will follow that up with him. We do not accept that Section 60 of the School Standards and Framework Act contravenes it. We have seen the opinion that my noble friend referred to and I am advised that we have not changed our view on that. However, as I said, we will reflect and I will meet him to discuss that with officials who will be better equipped than I to have a sensible conversation with him.
So far as academies generally are concerned, it is our policy that faith schools converting to academies will, upon conversion, retain the freedoms and responsibilities which come with those freedoms. That is true in terms of admissions, as we have discussed before, and in terms of staffing. Voluntary-aided schools have always had the ability to take faith into account in the employment of all of their teachers, so where a VA school converts we have preserved this position. Voluntary-controlled and foundation schools have, in comparison, historically only been allowed 20 per cent of staff as reserved teachers, employed to deliver RE in accordance with the tenets of the school’s faith. Where a school’s freedom to take religious considerations into account has historically been restricted in this way, we have also made a commitment that those restrictions will continue when a school converts. This position is currently protected in academies’ funding agreements but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said, we are using Clause 60 to ensure that these protections are also preserved in legislation. That was a commitment I made last year to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, who is sadly not in her place, during the passage of the Academies Act, and I am glad to have the chance to give it legislative effect.
The noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate discussed a specific point, and I hope this will clarify their exchange. I am told that the Education and Inspections Act 2006 amended the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to allow, but not require, the head teacher to be a reserved teacher, so the head teacher may be a reserved teacher, but does not have to be. That was to meet the needs of small schools with few teachers.
Turning to the specifics of the clause, Amendments 133 and 134 relate to the Secretary of State’s power to make an order to disapply the requirement that academies that were previously voluntary-controlled or foundation schools must employ up to 20 per cent of their teachers who are selected on their ability and willingness to teach denominational RE. Once that requirement is disapplied, the academy will have the ability to select up to 100 per cent of its teachers based on faith criteria, as any other independent school can. This was the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, was concerned about. I would like to make it clear to her that the power to issue such an order would be used only in circumstances where such an academy had changed its governance arrangements from minority to majority faith representation. It would mirror a process that is already possible in the maintained sector whereby, for example, a VC school can change category to a VA school and has to go through a consultation.
I agree with the point that issuing an order should not be a decision that is taken lightly. Any order would be issued only if a clear proposal had been set out justifying a change in the academy’s governance and staffing arrangements, a consultation of affected parties had taken place and a considered decision had been made in the light of responses to that consultation. Such an order would contain transitional provisions to protect the employment of teachers employed prior to the order taking effect. I hope that provides some reassurance.
On Amendment 127, I am advised that the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 mean that no teacher in an academy without a religious ethos can lawfully suffer less favourable treatment because of their religion or belief, as is required by the framework directive, so we think that the replication of Section 59 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 for non-religious academies would be an unnecessary additional layer of legislation.
As I said, I will follow up some of these more technical, detailed points, and we can pursue them further. Overall, the Government’s position is that parents choosing to sent their children to a faith school do so with the understanding that—
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood
Will the Minister clarify a point for me on this? The amendments have been presented, quite appropriately, as a matter of protecting the conditions of work of staff. That I understand, and naturally I support it very warmly, but I am also concerned about protecting the conditions of learning for pupils in these schools. Will exemption from inspection attach to some of these schools with a fairly high proportion of reserved teaching places? If that exemption could apply, what protection will there be for children who with a thorough inspection of the system could learn whether the teachers appointed in this way had the appropriate qualities and skills?
Lord Hill of Oareford
We touched on this before when we had the debate, which seems a very long time ago, about the arrangements for Ofsted and exemption from inspections. I know that the noble Lord has strong views on that point which we will, no doubt, return to later. The short answer to his question is that I think he knows the answer to his question. It was a rhetorical question about whether it is possible that some of those schools could be exempt from inspection because if they have an outstanding Ofsted clarification the answer to that question is probably yes. We will discuss that further.
Lord Hill of Oareford
“Value Added Tax Act 1994(4) Group 6 of Part 2 of Schedule 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (exemptions: education) is amended as follows.
(5) In item 5A—
(a) omit paragraph (a);(b) in paragraph (b), for “that Act” substitute “the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009”.(6) After item 5A insert—
“5B The provision of education or vocational training and the supply, by the person providing that education or training, of any goods or services essential to that provision, to persons who are—
(a) aged under 19,(b) aged 19 or over, in respect of education or training begun by them when they were aged under 19,(c) aged 19 or over but under 25 and subject to learning difficulty assessment, or(d) aged 25 or over, in respect of education or training begun by them when they were within paragraph (c),to the extent that the consideration payable is ultimately a charge to funds provided by the Secretary of State.”(7) In note (5A), for “item 5A” substitute “items 5A and 5B”.
(8) After note (5A) insert—
“(5B) In item 5B, “subject to learning difficulty assessment” has the same meaning as in the Education Act 1996.””
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, in a moment we shall come to a discussion about the abolition of the YPLA on which we shall have a broader conversation. First, I shall deal with minor Amendment 142A to Schedule 16, which is the final consequential amendment to primary legislation that is required as a result of the proposed abolition of the YPLA. I have written explaining the detail of it. At present, the Value Added Tax Act 1994 exempts from VAT any education and training for 16 to 19 year-olds that is funded by the YPLA. A VAT exemption also applies to any goods or services essential to that provision. This amendment ensures that the VAT exemption continues to apply when the Secretary of State assumes responsibility for the funding in April 2012. The amendment does not make any changes to the education, training, goods or services that will be exempt from VAT. It simply amends the VAT Act to reflect that the source of the funding is changing. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley
I have Amendment 143 in this group. First, I thank the Minister for his letter to me dated 5 September about this matter. I suspect that it may well have been copied to most Members of the Committee. He explained the Government’s rationale for moving YPLA, Partnerships for Schools and the Department of Education’s distributing role of funding local authorities for primary and secondary schools and bringing them together in the education funding agency, which will be responsible to Ministers, and Ministers will be accountable for its operation. It would make sense if it becomes more efficient than the current system, but it is particularly important that we do not lose the progress that has been made over the short life of the YPLA. It is a great compliment to the YPLA that the Association of Colleges has written to me and has asked the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and me to lay this amendment. It feels that, in its short life, the YPLA has communicated very effectively with the providers of post-16 education and has made sure that the voices of college leaders, principals and so on have been heard on its board, as well as the voice of schools.
The Association of Colleges feels that the chief executive and the chair of the YPLA have very quickly opened and maintained a very effective dialogue. My noble friends on these Benches and I can vouch for that because it has also had a dialogue with us. I am sure that other political groups have had the same dialogue. It is important that the proposed changes do not threaten that progress or stifle the open communication of views of the sector with those who are providing and distributing the funding.
There is a little fear out there that the new education funding agency, working within government, will become disconnected from the post-16 education sector. We hope that giving the Secretary of State the power to set up an advisory board with the structure as laid out in the amendment would prevent that happening. I am very pleased to tell those Members of the Committee who have not seen the letter from the Minister that its last paragraph states:
“I can see that there is a case for establishing an expert group, drawn from its customer base, to advise the new Agency on its operation. I have asked the chairs of the YPLA and Partnerships for Schools for their advice on this matter; that is due very shortly and I expect to be in a position to confirm our intentions later in the autumn”.
I am most grateful to the Minister for that and I wonder whether in his response he will elaborate on whether he feels that this advice will lead to the establishment of such an advisory board and whether he feels that it needs to be in legislation or should just be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. On the whole, those of us who want to ensure that that communication continues and that that expert advice is always available would like to see it in legislation.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, my noble friend set out the reasons very clearly for bringing together the functions of the YPLA with Partnership for Schools and the DfE, to give us a new education funding agency from next April that will be a single body responsible for funding. As she said, it will be an executive agency of the department, which will make clear that Ministers are responsible for the success of its operation. We do not need legislation to create the new agency or to close Partnership for Schools, which is a limited company. However, the YPLA is a statutory body and closing it requires repeal of the provisions of the ASCL Act 2009.
My noble friend's amendments seek to establish a panel of experts to advise on matters relating to education and training for young people. I know how helpful the YPLA has found its current board. It very much values the contributions that have been made, and I am not at all surprised by the comments that the AoC has made to my noble friend because there is a widely held view about those contributions. I have been fortunate enough to work with the board and am very grateful for the work that it has done. As we work to set up the new education funding agency, we are giving careful thought to how we could benefit from advice of that kind in the new arrangements that we will have. As I said in my letter, we are being helped by the chairmen of the YPLA and Partnership for Schools, Les Walton and Mike Grabiner. I hope that, later in the autumn, we will make clear the precise way in which we can do that.
The amendments propose an advisory board whose remit will be wider than the funding matters that are the principal focus of the education funding agency. It is certainly the case that Ministers and officials have long benefited from advice from all parts of the education sector to inform policy-making. The Learner Support Consultative Forum, which advises on financial support for 16 to 19 year-olds and adult learners, will continue to play a key role in advising on the operation of both the new bursary scheme and other learner support programmes. We have in place other arrangements, including standing advisory groups and formal consultation exercises, which enable others to contribute. As well as drawing on the expert advice to which my noble friend referred, there are a number of ways in which we will be able to address concerns.
The noble Baroness asked whether our preference would be for legislative or non-legislative means. Given that the new agency will be non-statutory, our view is that any advisory group should also be non-statutory. We will come back to that question later.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that I know very well the strength of feeling that she and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, have, and the work that they do, in this area. We discussed on Monday alternative provision and pupil referral units. There is an awful conveyor belt that takes too many children from illiteracy to pupil referral units, young offender institutions and prison, and then back to prison. I agree with her about the importance of trying to stop that process. That is why at one end we are reforming the education system with the emphasis on literacy and numeracy, and measures to help teachers tackle poor behaviour and set boundaries. We hope that that will start to tackle the problem at source. However, I recognise that we have to tackle the problem from the other end, too.
The Ministry of Justice and the Youth Justice Board have launched a consultation on the strategy for the secure estate for young offenders. It makes clear that the provision of high quality education and training is a vital component of the rehabilitation process and should be part of trying to help young offenders to turn away from crime and lead more fulfilling lives.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, will know, the YPLA currently manages the contracts for the education of young offenders on behalf of the Ministry of Justice. By and large we think that those contracts operate well, but I have agreed with the Prisons Minister that the responsibility for managing those contracts should pass to the education funding agency next April when the YPLA is dissolved. Because the new agency’s staff will come largely from the YPLA, we think that they will have the capacity and expertise to fulfil its responsibilities.
However, that is an interim arrangement and the Ministry of Justice is considering the arrangements in the long term. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, met the Ministry of Justice earlier in the summer. I am glad that she did so and hope that she will continue to talk to the Ministry of Justice, which is the lead department on the educational side, as we go forward. I, too, am keen to talk to her about that. That is where we are on the replacement arrangements for the YPLA. With that, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to accept my reassurance.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I had better say to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, that I will not move Amendment 145 because I had a wonderful e-mail from the Minister saying that he had done everything he possibly could and that all sorts of wonderful reductions in paperwork were on the way. All I can say is thank you.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, and I have been waiting rather a long time for our cameo role in this Bill. I hope that my voice lasts the course of this debate. It has been a very useful debate, and I hope that I can manage to answer some of the points and give an indication of where the Government are going and how we wish to continue to speak to all noble Lords involved with apprenticeships and address the concerns that have been expressed. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for saying that he welcomes what we are doing but wants, as I think he put it, to stretch out our commitment. That is the theme behind a lot of the amendments that have been tabled, and I would like to discuss them in due course.
However, if the noble Lord will bear with me, I shall start with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Layard, supported by a weighty list of noble Lords from all sides of the House. I know they have been discussing their amendment with my colleague John Hayes, and I am very grateful for that. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Layard, had a further useful conversation with my honourable friend earlier this afternoon and that he is willing to work with the Government on a government amendment that would come forward on Report to achieve the shared aim of promoting apprenticeships to young people in a way that fits in with the redefined apprenticeships offer. I hope that after discussing this matter with my noble friend Lord Wakeham and the other noble Lords who tabled the amendment, the noble Lord will send his proposal to me or to my honourable friend. We have a reasonable amount of time because of the odd way this House is sitting and then breaking off so that we can all go off to our conferences. I do not know whether the noble Lord is going, but some of us are. There is certainly time for discussions to continue to take place on that. I give an assurance that doors are still open and that discussion will continue to take place.
I now return to the noble Lord, Lord Young, and congratulate him on his speech. I apologise for the fact that he was interrupted not once, but twice by Division Bells in the Chamber. I shall deal with one or two of the points that he raised in his amendment. First, he mentioned his concerns about the number of 16 to 18 starts. The figures the department has are that there were 99,400 starts in 2008-09, 116,000 starts in 2009-10 and 102,900 starts in the first nine months of 2010-11, and one hopes that there will be more. We hope that we will continue to see some sort of increase. I hope that the noble Lord will find those figures useful.
He also commented on targets. I note that the Government of whom he was a distinguished member were very keen on targets. I have always been less keen on targets and think that they can very often distort and end up producing the wrong result because people merely go for whatever the number is on paper. We do not want to have targets in this area, but we obviously have to work to planning assumptions modelled by the analysts based on previous years and future ambitions. That is where we get the figures that he was talking about. I think he should consider that targets in themselves can sometimes produce the wrong result.
I shall turn in slightly more detail to the noble Lord’s three amendments: Amendments 144AA, 144AB and 144C. Amendment 144AA deals with the offer. I understand the noble Lord’s concern, and I can assure him that the Government wholeheartedly share it. We also want to see many young people starting their careers on a sound basis through apprenticeship, as the noble Lord did himself. We differ only in our view about the most effective way to achieve that. That is why my honourable friend wants further discussions with the noble Lords behind that amendment.
The previous Government, of whom the noble Lord was a member, did much good work in building the apprenticeship programme. We accept that. They substantially increased the number of people undertaking an apprenticeship and put in place many of the structures and procedures that make the apprenticeship programme what it is today. We acknowledge that. However, the original offer set out in the 2009 legislation of an apprenticeship place for all suitably qualified young people in specific groups would mean the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency having to find jobs with employers for all the eligible young people who wanted an apprenticeship, but neither he nor Government can tell employers whom to employ. I think the noble Lord will accept that point.
Our redefined offer in this Bill constitutes a more robust deal for those same groups of young people because we know we can deliver it. The duty on the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency to prioritise funding for their training once they have an apprenticeship place sets the right balance between the employer-led nature of the programme and the need for support from government that young people can rely on.
In Amendment 144AB, the noble Lord suggests that procurement could be used as a vehicle for encouraging employers to take on a number of apprentices. Amendments 144AB and 144AC raise three issues: first, increasing the number of apprentices working on government projects, secondly, regularly publishing the numbers and planned numbers of apprentices in the Civil Service, and thirdly, linking apprenticeships and Investors in People status. I know my honourable friend recently met the noble Lord to discuss all those subjects and to explain the Government’s fundamental belief in a voluntary rather than a regulatory approach. I have always believed that in government. It is a better approach to follow to avoid additional burdens, particularly on smaller employers and smaller businesses. I know that my honourable friend outlined the actions he is leading to drive up the number of apprenticeships in the public sector.
On procurement, the Government want to encourage more businesses to offer apprenticeships for the clear benefits they bring to individuals and employers, but we do not believe that the best approach is to impose this by adding to the mountain of rules and regulations that businesses face on procurement at the moment and which are really very substantial. Rather, we are committed to simplifying and streamlining the procurement process to reduce burdens for suppliers and public sector bodies. Within these parameters, I know that my honourable friend has reiterated to the noble Lord his intention to look again at our policies and the way they could encourage more apprenticeship places, without disadvantaging SMEs or, of course, breaching the law.
Turning to the noble Lord’s amendment on Investors in People status, I am sure that he would agree that Investors in People is the mark of an employer that cares deeply about the long-term skills needs of its workforce and understands the business advantages of skilled and motivated staff but, because of the wide range of benefits of Investors in People status to staff and employers, we would not want further to discourage take-up of the standard. If we were to add extra conditions at this stage, such as needing to demonstrate a commitment to apprenticeships, we possibly risk inadvertently reducing employer engagement with the programme.
Amendment 144C, which was tabled by my noble friend Lord Addington, relates to apprenticeship specification and disabled people. I understand that he is seeking assurances that learners who demonstrate that they have the skills and experience to meet the requirements of an apprenticeship certificate should not be prevented from receiving a certificate on the basis of any recognised disability. I understand that we have written to the noble Lord to provide reassurances on this and to explain the steps that we are taking to ensure that apprentices with a disability are at no disadvantage in the certification process for an apprenticeship. If my noble friend feels that is not sufficient, my honourable friend would be happy to have further discussions with my noble friend between this stage and Report.
Lord Addington
I thank my noble friend. I should have said thank you at the time. I hope he will appreciate that this is based on the fact that something is going wrong, not on some theoretical idea. It is based on practical problems at the moment.
Lord Henley
I am very grateful to my noble friend for putting it in those terms. That makes it even more important that he talks to the department and to my honourable friend and tries to secure some sort of agreement. We now have a reasonable amount of time. I know the noble Lord will be heading off to wherever the Liberal Democrats hold their conference but, in due course, he will be back and then discussions can take place in the appropriate manner.
I want to deal with a couple of other points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, raised a question concerning people with disabilities and the offer. I can confirm that disabled people aged 19 to 24 are covered by the offer and that that group will be prescribed in regulations. There is also the commitment given by the previous Government during the passage of the ASCLA—as we now seem to call it—to take on an inclusive approach. They are also being advised on this by external disability experts. No doubt we will be able to let the noble Lord know a little more in due course.
Finally, my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford asked about the response to the Wolf report on incentives to employers. We accepted that recommendation in the Wolf report. The National Apprenticeship Service has recently run pilots looking at incentive payments and we need to consider these and other research into employer payments to ensure that we avoid dead weight when implementing this recommendation. That is work in progress.
Before my voice finally gives out, I say that we are all travelling in roughly the same direction. We might be going at different speeds and there might be tensions in how we do it, but I believe that much more can be done through further discussions. I believe that we are all committed to the same outcome, which is seeing increasing numbers of apprentices across both public and private sectors and increasing employer participation in the programme. With those assurances, I hope that all noble Lords who have put forward their amendments and spoken to them so eloquently will feel able to withdraw them and, where appropriate, I hope that conversations can continue between now and Report.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
Perhaps I may make a few brief comments in relation to what has been said. I support the intentions of my noble friend Lord Layard in his amendment. I would like it to go a bit further but we are all travelling in the same direction. I was not exactly sure what the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, meant when he said I had gone off key in the latter part of what I said, but I agree with him on his point about literacy and numeracy skills. Interestingly, if you can get young people involved in the apprenticeship process, it refocuses them on the importance of learning. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I would want to do everything I can to assist in that process. We discussed a whole range of disabilities, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, will testify—he always makes sure that we do. I thought we reached some useful agreements. I am glad that the incentive to employers was answered and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for her support, and likewise my noble friend Lord Monks.
On the status of apprenticeships, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey. One thing that we got slightly wrong was that, by focusing on getting 50 per cent of young people to go to university, we gave the impression that the vocational route was a second-class route. We need to do a lot more on that. Gradually, the tide is turning. On a lot of apprenticeship schemes, when the apprentices complete their training there is a graduation ceremony. We need to do more on this.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred to targets. Whether or not we delete “target” and insert “planning assumption”, we will still have to make calculations. Before the Government say that the 2015 commitment is not the right approach, it would be interesting to see the planning assumption for what the demand would be. I say that it could be done, and that it is absolutely the right signal that should be sent to young people and to the country.
The noble Lord said that he preferred a voluntary approach when it came to contracts, and that apprenticeships would place an additional burden. I wish that he would not use that term. Apprenticeships are not a burden on companies. They think that they are, but when they take on apprentices they frequently realise what a good investment they are. I do not see them as a burden. When we worked with the Olympic committee and Crossrail, we found that they understood the value of apprenticeships. The Government should take a long, hard look at making them a key part of government procurement contracts. I do not believe that it would disadvantage SMEs, but I will not go over the debate again. With IiPs, what disturbed me was that again there was no reference to apprenticeships. If we are to say that these companies invest in people, surely apprenticeships ought to be part of the investment. I do not know how we should go about it, but something should be done.
I will of course withdraw the amendment, because that is how we operate in Grand Committee. However, we will return to these issues on Report. I welcome the offer of further discussions because I, too, want to make progress. I thank the Minister, John Hayes, for our previous discussion. It was a worthwhile exchange of views. With those comments and caveats, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, let me start on that fair point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend. We intend to commence those support duties on local authorities and learning providers. The issue that we are considering today, which I will come back on, is the enforcement process. We accept that those support duties need to be commenced.
The latest statistics show that we had 96.1 per cent of 16 year-olds and over 87 per cent of 17 year-olds participating in education or training at the end of 2010. That is a sign, which I know that the noble Baroness will welcome, that more young people are seeing the value of continuing their education and that the education and training sector is becoming more flexible in meeting their needs. We agree with the previous Government’s plans to raise the participation age to 17 in 2013 and 18 in 2015, which was the timescale set out in the Education and Skills Act 2008. We are committed to continuing that. We think that that timescale to which various bodies—local authorities, providers, schools and colleges—are working is sensible and gives schools, colleges and workplaces offering apprenticeships time to prepare. I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that this is a probing amendment to look into these points. I do not think that January 2012 is actually what she had in mind. I agree with her that we think that that is not a workable suggestion but that the timescale set out by the previous Government is the one to which we will continue to work.
The amendment would also commence all the enforcement provisions in step at the same time as the leaving age was raised in one go. Those provisions would allow local authorities to issue attendance notices, bring young people before attendance panels, give out fixed penalty notices, and ultimately, as a last resort, prosecute young people in a criminal court. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said that she did not want to criminalise young people, and we certainly do not want to do so. That is our thinking behind delaying. We want young people to participate because they recognise the benefits that education and training will bring.
As it stands, Clause 71 allows us to delay the commencement of the enforcement process, and we think that is the right way forward to give the system time to adapt. However, I want to underline that we do not intend to remove the enforcement provisions altogether, which I hope will reassure the noble Baroness. We will keep this under annual review. We hope that participation will increase because of the quality of the training on offer and because young people increasingly see its benefits, but if necessary we will commence all or some of the enforcement provisions. The pupil premium and targeted financial support via 16-to-19 bursaries will help ensure that young people are supported to continue learning. We have a process in place, run by local authorities, that ensures that 16 and 17 year-olds receive an offer of a suitable place in learning and, as we have already discussed, we are implementing all Professor Alison Wolf’s recommendations to ensure that vocational routes generally are of high quality.
We are committed to raising the participation age. We will do it on the timetable laid out by the previous Government. We are not removing the enforcement process but are just delaying its introduction. We will commence the support duties that the noble Baroness raised, we will review the need for enforcement on an annual basis and we will ensure that it is introduced if that is appropriate. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the Minister for that. I think we have an agreement about the date, although the date is not the point here. I think that we would be happy with the original date and with working towards that plan. I am slightly anxious because he talked a lot about enforcement. While the original legislation had enforcement mechanisms, the whole point of our amendment is that it is not about enforcement. Raising the participation age will work only if the infrastructure and the enforcement go hand in hand. I do not want the Minister to go away with the idea that we would come along with a big bludgeon and demand that young people stay on at all cost. That is not the purpose of the amendment. Its purpose is for teachers, local authorities and employers—all the players in the education of young people—to put in place all the mechanisms to ensure that that encouragement takes place.
I am still a little unclear about what the Minister means when he says that they will commence the support duties. We may have to return to that, because if that is the case, we would like to see those duties on the face of the Bill, and it is not clear to us at the moment that they are. This is about a balanced approach, it is about infrastructure and making sure that young people comply with the new legislation in equal measure. I am not sure, as the Minister has set out the position at the moment, that we will achieve necessarily what the original legislation aimed to do, so we may well return to this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, I think this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn.