Education Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 18.

Lords amendment 19, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 20 to 22.

Lords amendment 23, and amendment (b) thereto.

Lords amendment 24, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 25 and 26.

Lords amendment 27, and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.

Lords amendments 30 to 35, 37, 38, 40 to 42, 44 to 46 and 72 to 98.

[Mr Gibb]

It is with great pleasure that I bring the Education Bill back before the House. It received detailed scrutiny here in the spring, in the course of 22 Committee sittings, before it went off to the other place. Their lordships have given it the full benefit of their diligence and expertise and I am pleased to say that its core content is as it was when it left this House. Before I address the amendments, it might be helpful if I briefly remind the House of the core content. Its main purpose is to give legislative effect to the proposals in the education White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”, published last November. It also contains some measures from the Department for Business Innovations and Skills, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning will discuss in due course.

The Bill has four main themes. First, it seeks to give teachers and head teachers greater freedom and flexibility to use their judgment and expertise to get the best results for their pupils. International evidence shows that greater school autonomy characterises the best performing education systems. The Bill seeks to remove unnecessary legislative duties from schools and extends the benefits of the academies programme to 16 to 19-year-old pupils and vulnerable pupils in need of alternative provision.

Secondly, the Bill seeks to strengthen the powers and authority of teachers in relation to classroom discipline. We want all children to be educated in a safe environment that is free from disruption and we want all teachers and prospective teachers to feel confident that they have society’s backing in tackling poor behaviour. The Bill will allow same-day after-school detentions and will provide a power to search pupils for any item likely to cause harm or injury. It will also give teachers pre-charge anonymity when faced with an allegation by a pupil that they have committed an offence.

Thirdly, the Bill matches the increased autonomy it seeks to introduce with sharpened accountability and seeks to focus Ofsted inspections on the four most important aspects of a school’s work. It will require Ofqual, the independent regulator, to secure that the standards of English qualifications are comparable with the best in the world, and it will strengthen the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene in poorly performing schools. It will abolish five arm’s length bodies to reduce wasteful duplication and will ensure that there is accountability to Parliament, through the Secretary of State, for functions that need to be carried out nationally.

Fourthly, the Bill seeks to promote greater fairness in the context of current fiscal constraints. It will give disadvantaged two-year-olds an entitlement to free early-years provision, and for new higher education students it will enable the new student finance arrangements to come into force.

There have been a relatively small number of technical and drafting amendments, but their Lordships have also made a number of substantive amendments to improve the Bill, and I shall now explain them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Were the Government able to provide any further evidence in the Lords as to the prevalence of such allegations and what proportion of them were found to be malicious?

[Mr Gibb]

I thought the hon. Gentleman supported these proposals. He will be aware that the National Union of Teachers and the NASUWT have compiled figures on such allegations against teachers. The NUT estimates there are about 200 a year, and we gave evidence to the Lords of at least 15 cases in the last few years where there were damaging local reports and publicity about the allegations before charges were brought.

[Kevin Brennan]

The Minister is right that the Opposition have supported these proposals, but they must also be carefully scrutinised for any possible unforeseen consequences. That has been done very effectively in the Commons in Committee and also in the Lords. Is it correct that in the Lords the Government accepted that about 2% of such allegations had turned out to be malicious?

[Mr Gibb]

Yes, of course, but we are talking about the effect on individuals, and if there is just one case of someone suffering such publicity about what turns out to be a false allegation, that is one case too many, as such allegations can have devastating consequences on teachers both socially and career-wise. The publicity that just one such case receives also reverberates throughout the teaching profession, undermining teachers’ morale and making them unduly cautious about maintaining discipline in our classrooms. If we are interested in the welfare of pupils in our schools, we have to make sure they are taught in ordered and safe environments, free from bullying and other disruptive activities.

I thought, however, that the hon. Gentleman was concerned in Committee less about the prevalence of such allegations and more about the question of whether these provisions should be extended to other sectors of the workforce. We have proceeded extremely cautiously, taking into account the fact that we must preserve press freedom as well as the integrity of teachers and their being innocent until proven otherwise.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, I am sympathetic to the Government’s intentions in this regard as well, but I am concerned about press freedom and I would be grateful if he could set out the case for teachers alone being given this exemption from publicity. Such allegations could be equally devastating to members of a different profession. Might this provision prove to be the thin end of the wedge in that there could be a great deal more press censorship and the public will not be able to know about allegations made against people in their local community?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Education Committee, makes a good point, but teachers are very much on the front line of maintaining discipline in the classroom. We conducted a survey of 116 local authority designated officers—LADOs—and its findings support the view that teachers are particularly vulnerable to false allegations. Some 23% of allegations against staff in all sectors were made against teachers, and almost half of those were found to be unsubstantiated, malicious or unfounded. The proportion that related to other staff in schools was significantly low: from recollection I think that it was about 14%, compared with the 23% that applied to teachers.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister may recall that in the previous Parliament the Committee looked intensively at that very area, and I support much of what he says, but in that context we made a range of recommendations to ensure that teachers were protected from false allegations, and that head teachers knew what they were doing. Few head teachers confront the situation very often, but very often they suspend people unnecessarily and start the problem running in the first place. We recommended that a code of conduct should be at the heart of the change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with the excellent work that he carried out when he was the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee and the Children, Schools and Families Committee in the previous Parliament. We have looked at the whole process of investigating teachers when they are subject to such allegations, and we are changing the guidance so that there is not a default position of automatic suspension once an accusation is made. We have also been speaking to the Association of Chief Police Officers about the speed of investigations, because we cannot have teachers waiting months or years before allegations are investigated and settled. We want to speed up the process, to remove the automatic and default position of suspension and to enable teachers to continue to have a connection with the school during the course of any allegation, so that they do not feel isolated while the process is under way.

[Mr Sheerman]

Is it not a fact, however, that the current Chairman of the Education Committee might have a much rosier view of the British press than I do? Anyone who listened to Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning will have heard one of The Sun newspaper’s most senior journalists say that there should be no reform of British press regulation. If the hon. Gentleman has that rosy view of the press, I certainly want to put it on the record that I do not share it.

[Mr Gibb]

I really do not want to intervene or interfere in this debate between two such august hon. Gentlemen, but we have been careful to tread warily between the two interests: the interest of protecting teachers from the full force of false allegations before they are proven or charges are brought, and from the publicity that might accompany them, and the important interest of protecting press freedom. We are treading cautiously, and that is why we have not extended the measure to other parts of the children’s work force. We want to see how it works in the first instance before making any further decisions.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) made the case for providing protection to groups other than teachers, but he accepted our cautious and targeted approach and suspected that the clause, even in its narrow form, might attract the close attention of, as he put it,

“people more erudite and noble than ourselves”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 22 March 2011; c. 557.]

He has been proven correct, but I am pleased to say that the substance of the provision returns to the House intact and with three important improvements. First, through amendment 5, the clause now makes it clear that tentative allegations that a teacher may be guilty of an offence should be treated in the same way as firmer allegations that they are guilty. That was always our intention because even—or, indeed, especially—tentative allegations can have a damaging effect on the teachers involved.

Secondly, through amendment 7, the clause now makes it clear that a judge who is considering an application for reporting restrictions to be lifted should take account of the welfare of both the teacher who is the subject of the allegation and the pupil or pupils who are the alleged victims. We will ensure through amendment 11 that where a teacher decides to identify himself or herself publicly as the subject of an allegation, reporting restrictions are lifted altogether. It is right that if a teacher effectively waives their right to anonymity by, for instance, writing in a newspaper about an allegation, others can also join the public debate.

The noble Lords echoed this House’s concern about clause 30, which would have removed schools and colleges from the duty to co-operate with local partners. My noble Friend Lord Hill met a number of peers during the summer to discuss the matter further and he then discussed the outcome of those conversations with me and the Secretary of State. We accept that retaining the duty would provide continuity while we implement the proposals of the Green Paper, “Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability.” That point was made forcefully in Committee. In another place, Lord Hill introduced amendments 18, 19 and 42 to remove from the Bill clause 30 and the related clause 31.

[Kevin Brennan]

When we were in Committee, I recall the Minister saying that he regarded the duty to co-operate as an “unnecessary prescription” on schools—[Interruption.] Perhaps that is the Secretary of State ringing up his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) to give him the answer. In Committee, the Minister also said:

“It is not appropriate to delay removing that burden”—

that unnecessary prescription—

from schools.”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 29 March 2011; c. 729.]

What points did Lord Hill make in the Lords that were different from those made in the Commons and how did that persuade the Minister to change his mind? Secondly, is this a temporary conversion or does he intend to remove the duty to co-operate at some further stage?

[Mr Gibb]

We were never against co-operation. It is very important that schools, academies and free schools continue to co-operate with other state bodies, locally and nationally, that affect children. That was our reason for removing the prescriptive duty. A number of changes are happening in relation to the Health and Social Care Bill and the SEN Green Paper and, having considered the matter further and reflected upon it, it is better to maintain the duty until deliberations over those measures are complete and until decisions about the SEN Green Paper have been taken.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Although some of us are very focused on the duty of schools to co-operate with the local authority, some of us are focused on local authorities’ duty to co-operate with academies and free schools. Will my hon. Friend advise me what in the Bill will enable us to be sure that local authorities provide the same extent of co-operation to free schools and academies as they do to maintained schools?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Co-operation is important, whether it is with children’s trust boards or from local authorities with other elements of the education world, such as free schools and academies. Local authorities that undermine or try to undermine the establishment of new schools that are demanded by parents in that local authority will find their opinions and actions challenged at election time. For a school to be approved by the Secretary of State as a new free school, it has to demonstrate parental demand. It is not in the interests of a local authority not to co-operate when a group of parents, a group of teachers or others are seeking to establish a free school in its area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

In the light of what the Prime Minister has said today about the dangers of schools coasting, is the Minister content, prior to the discussion of our amendment, that the Government’s position on this will not make matters worse, given the potential for schools that have been found to be outstanding to coast and then not to be inspected, with it being difficult to trigger an inspection for them in future?

[Mr Gibb]

The Prime Minister made some very important points about coasting schools in his article in The Daily Telegraph today. We want to see standards rise throughout the education system. There has been a concentration on failing schools, but we must also concentrate on the schools in the leafy suburbs that are not challenging their pupils as well as they should. All schools will now be subject to our scrutiny to make sure that they raise standards. The new performance tables will identify how schools perform in relation to children of high academic ability, as well as how they perform in relation to children of a lower academic ability. We will reflect on some of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, but outstanding schools are, by their nature, not necessarily to be regarded as coasting if they have been graded by Ofsted as outstanding. The arrangements I talked about are to do with using risk assessment strategies to pick up on problems, even in outstanding schools. Those risk assessments are what will trigger Ofsted to carry out an inspection in an outstanding school.

[Kevin Brennan]

My concern is that the exemption from inspection is almost an invitation to coast. There is a danger of that. Does the Minister not accept that it might be worth cogitating on that a little further in the light of what the Prime Minister has said?

[Mr Gibb]

I am happy to think further about those issues. However, the point of the proposal is that it is difficult for schools to achieve from Ofsted the accolade of outstanding. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) have visited schools that are categorised by Ofsted as outstanding. It is clear why those schools have been so categorised. I was at a school last week in Wiltshire that had been categorised by Ofsted as outstanding in all 27 categories. I believe that it was the first school to be given such a grading.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

The Minister is absolutely right to have proportionate inspection. We need to be careful to ensure that outstanding schools that may end up coasting or dropping their standards are picked up. If the shadow Minister is suggesting that it would be a better policy to inspect every school, however outstanding, all the time, he is completely wrong. A proportionate approach with the right safeguards and triggers in place and with constant review of those triggers is the right way to go. The Government are right on this issue.

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is right that one has to be proportionate in these issues. Ultimately, this is a matter for the chief inspector of schools. If the results of an outstanding school start to decline, as was hinted at by the hon. Member for Cardiff West, it will be picked up in the risk assessment. He has made important points and we will, of course, reflect on them in the usual way.

[Kevin Brennan]

I will intervene one final time on this issue because I do not want to detain the House. The Chairman of the Select Committee knows that what he described was not what the Opposition proposed in Committee. We proposed triggers for inspection that would be appropriate for schools that had been ruled outstanding but may have slipped. Is that not exactly what the new chief inspector of schools, who was just appointed by the Government, has said in relation to checking whether outstanding schools remain outstanding? After all, when outstanding leaders leave outstanding schools, that can often lead to a big change in the performance of those institutions.

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. When a new head teacher comes into a school it can have important effects, and not necessarily beneficial ones if the school has been led by a very effective leader. That would be a risk assessment issue. I know that it is an issue that the new chief inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, is concerned about. We will reflect on those points in due course. The principle of having proportionate inspection and targeting the limited resources on schools that have the most pressing need is important. However, we must take it into account if a school that is graded as outstanding is not graded as outstanding in teaching, for instance.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I agree with what the Minister and the shadow Minister say about proportionality in inspection. However, it is important that outstanding schools are inspected by Ofsted as part of the ongoing learning of other schools. I hope that the Minister will ensure that Ofsted continues to do that to spread good practice in the system.

[Mr Gibb]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Ofsted inspectors need to learn what an outstanding school looks like. That always was the case. Even when schools are exempted from inspection, inspectors will still see outstanding schools in themed inspections, which might look at how religious education or maths is taught. On those occasions, inspectors will still experience outstanding schools.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that the way to deal with coasting schools is not so much through the inspection process, but through the publication of contextual value added evidence from schools?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Performance tables are an important piece of the jigsaw of measures that holds publicly funded schools to account. We are not going to pursue the contextual value added measure, because of its flaws, not least of which is the fact that it tends to entrench low expectations for certain sections of society, which we do not believe is right. All children, from all backgrounds, should be expected to reach the best of their academic ability at school, and schools should deliver a high quality of education to all young people. However, there are other important progress measures, such as how a child performs at the end of key stage 2 compared with how they perform in their GCSEs.

As I said earlier, in the performance tables to be published in January, we intend to have separate columns indicating how well a school performs in relation to children who enter secondary school with a level 5 at key stage 2 and those who enter with a level 3.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I say gently to the Minister that I know he is making full efforts to satisfy his audience, and in one sense that is appreciated—if this were a seminar it would be an extremely therapeutic and informative one—but it is important that we tend to the specifics of the amendments with which we are dealing. For the benefit of colleagues who might labour under a misapprehension to the contrary, this is not a Second Reading debate on coasting schools. We are attending to narrow and particular amendments, to the consideration of which I know the Minister will now return.

[Mr Gibb]

I am grateful for that ruling, Mr Speaker, and I will press on by turning to academies.

The Bill retains important measures to facilitate the Government’s ambitious plan to extend the proven benefits of the academy programme to a much greater number of pupils. One of those measures is the extension of the academy model to alternative provision and the 16-to-19 sector. Lords amendments 72 to 81 are consequential on the creation of those new types of academy, and the Government tabled them in line with a commitment that I gave in Committee to put more such consequential amendments into the Bill. In addition, Lords amendment 89 reduces the reach of the powers given to the Secretary of State by schedule 14 in the case of private land leased to new academies.

In addition, three new clauses were added to the Bill in the other place, the first of which is in Lords amendment 34. Under section 6(2) of the Academies Act 2010, a local authority must cease to maintain—that is, cover all the costs of—a school once it converts to academy status. Some banks and local authorities have asked whether that prohibition on maintenance might prevent a local authority from making payments under private finance initiative or other contracts in relation to schools that have converted into academies.

Local authorities have always been able to use their own resources to provide assistance, including financial assistance, to academies, and to enter into contractual commitments and incur liabilities on their behalf. We are clear that their continuing to do those things would not have been prevented by the wording of section 6(2) of the Academies Act, and that was not the intention behind the Act. All academies are, and will continue to be, maintained by the Secretary of State under funding arrangements entered into under section 1 of that Act. Any assistance that local authorities provide to academies, whether financial or otherwise, will only ever be a proportion of the total expense of running an academy. Lords amendment 34 therefore confirms that local authorities can continue to make payments for academies under PFI and other contracts.

[Richard Fuller]

This is a slightly specific question, Mr Speaker, but it does relate to the Lords amendments.

In circumstances in which a local authority had already made an undertaking for capital provision to a federation of schools, and a school that was part of the federation wished to become an academy, would the local authority be able to advise that school’s governors that they would no longer be entitled to the capital aid expenditure promised for schools in that pyramid? Could the local authority make that funding consequential upon a school staying maintained or moving to academy status, or do the Lords amendments prohibit that possibility?

[Mr Gibb]

I know what my hon. Friend refers to, but I would prefer to get the technical answer to his question absolutely right and will therefore write to him, so that he can be clear when he raises this issue with his local authority that he has a proper analysis of the legal position and not something that I have spoken from memory.

In response to concerns raised in Committee in the House of Lords, the Government introduced an amendment to give Ofqual the power to fine awarding organisations in certain circumstances. Our intention is to ensure that Ofqual has a full range of effective and proportionate powers to use to carry out its duties and responsibilities.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

In the Lords, the Government accepted various amendments to limit the impact of such fines on global companies, which is welcome, but the measure was introduced with very little consultation. What is the evidence that we need fines to get awarding bodies to comply with Ofqual? What is the evidence that there is a problem to which fines provide an answer?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend will have seen over the summer some of the errors in the exams. They are unacceptable. We believe that the awarding organisations should not make the quantum and seriousness of those errors again. Other regulators have such powers, and if he bears with me, I will try to set out why we introduced those provisions.

The provisions in Lords amendments 16 and 17 are broadly consistent with the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. As many hon. Members will know, including my hon. Friend, the Act provides many other regulators with a toolkit of sanctions that are risk based, consistent, proportionate and effective. Ofqual currently has only two types of sanction available to it: the power to direct an awarding organisation; and the dramatic, nuclear option of partial or full withdrawal of recognition. In addition, before Ofqual can use its current enforcement powers, it must be the case that an awarding organisation’s failure to comply with a condition has prejudiced, or is likely to prejudice, either the proper award of a qualification or students who might reasonably be expected to seek to obtain such a qualification awarded by that organisation.

The Government believe that those tests unnecessarily limit Ofqual’s powers and could reduce its capacity to take timely and proportionate enforcement action. Removing the tests and giving Ofqual a power to fine will help to prevent the kind of mistakes in exam papers that we saw last summer, which undermine the hard work of the pupils who sat them. That is the purpose of Lords amendment 16, and Lords amendment 17 confers similar powers on Welsh Ministers as the regulators of Welsh qualifications.

[Mr Stuart]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s thinking, but I am not entirely persuaded. The currency on which awarding bodies trade is their reputation. Notwithstanding the problems this summer, they needed no fine or massive regulatory hammer to bring them to book. All awarding bodies would immediately seek to improve their systems following such errors—I believe they did so. It feels as if we are introducing sanctions that are unnecessary for the workings of that market. The Government have pledged to eschew unnecessary regulations unless there is an overwhelming case, but I am not sure that the errors last summer make that overwhelming case.

[Mr Gibb]

I must disagree with my hon. Friend, because the seriousness of the errors was not just in their number—I believe there were 13 errors in exam papers this summer. What was particularly serious was the fact that when we asked awarding bodies to check that there were no further errors, they affirmed that they had done so or that they would do so, but then new errors appeared. That is why what happened this summer was so serious rather than the initial errors in the papers.

On reputation and the market, all the main awarding bodies had errors, so there is no market mechanism—no one of them could say, “We had no errors but the others did.” My third argument is that all regulators have such powers. We cannot rely on the nuclear option of ending accreditation.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

There are considerable costs for schools when they switch from one awarding body to another. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that the idea of a market operating in the normal way does not quite apply?

[Mr Gibb]

My hon. Friend is right. All kinds of other factors will determine which awarding organisations schools use and why, and there is a “stickiness” compared with the fluidity that might exist in another market situation.

Lords amendment 37 would give the Secretary of State the power to pilot the use of direct payments in education for children with special educational needs. In the Green Paper on special educational needs and disability, we committed to give every child with a statement of SEN or a new education, health and care plan the option of a personal budget by 2014. One element of a personal budget can be a direct payment to a family to buy support for their child. Direct payments are already being used in health and social care, and we want to test how the greater choice and control they give to families can be effectively achieved in education too.

With those brief remarks, I commend the Bill and these amendments to the House.

[Kevin Brennan]

In this debate on Lords amendment 1 and all the amendments that it is highly convenient—for the Government, anyway—to group with it, I note that the Bill returns to us from the Lords without any non-Government amendments. Perhaps that is a reflection of changing times and the new, rigid hegemony in the other place, whereby amendments are rarely passed there without the Government’s say-so.

[Mr Gibb]

I thought that the hon. Gentleman might be a little more generous about the powers of persuasion of my hon. Friend Lord Hill.

[Kevin Brennan]

I was indeed going to be generous—about the powers of persuasion of our Front Benchers in the House of Lords. They persuaded the Government—more effectively than my hon. Friends and I in the Commons did—to change their mind on one or two issues, which I shall come to in a moment.

The Minister has taken the trouble to talk us through the Lords amendments, as he said he would, but some questions emerge from what he said that, if he has the leave of the House to speak later in the debate, I hope he will answer. Lords amendments 1 to 4 relate to clause 8 and the Secretary of State’s functions in relation to teachers. The Bill abolishes the General Teaching Council for England. I note that some criticisms have been made of its operations. One year after the publication of the White Paper, “The Importance of Teaching”, in which the Secretary of State said—I agree with him about this—that there was

“no calling more noble, no profession more vital and no service more important than teaching,”

it is significant that he has taken the opportunity to abolish the professional body.

The Bill transfers some of the General Teaching Council’s functions to the Secretary of State, among which is the power to prohibit a teacher from teaching. In Committee in this House, we debated an Opposition amendment—which, surprisingly, was not successful—that would have required the Secretary of State to keep a list of persons prohibited from teaching. I note that Lord Hill confirmed in the other place that the Government believe that a database of teachers prohibited from teaching will be established. We tabled amendments here and in the other place to require the Secretary of State to keep a register of qualified teachers—again, to our surprise, without success—but Lord Hill indicated that he would consider the matter, saying,

“we have been persuaded by concerns raised in this House and elsewhere that there is a genuine need for the Government to help schools to know who has qualified teacher status and who has passed induction.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 257.]

That is welcome. He went on to confirm that there would be an online database from 2012.

Another concern is the proposal to give employers discretion over which cases of misconduct—those that might lead to the prohibition of a teacher—to refer to the Secretary of State. Again, colleagues in both Houses raised concerns about transparency and consistency. I welcome Lord Hill’s notification to Baroness Jones that the Government are developing advice on the new system to help professional conduct hearing panels determine when a teacher should be prohibited from the profession and that such advice will be available publicly.

Lords amendments 1 to 4 would enable the Secretary of State to issue interim prohibition orders—quickly imposed orders that prevent a teacher from undertaking work while the Secretary of State is considering their case—where he considers it in the public interest to do so, and they must be reviewed every six months. The amendments were tabled in Grand Committee in the House of Lords, but I do not think they were debated there. Their rationale was not given, so when the Minister replies he might like to emphasise what the rationale was, what the amendments will achieve, why they are so important and perhaps why they were not included in the first draft.

Lords amendments 5 to 15 relate to restrictions on the reporting of alleged offences by teachers, about which we had an exchange earlier. We have supported the Government’s intention to help protect teachers from malicious allegations, but we have also been keen to ensure that the provisions are properly scrutinised, as there is a possibility of unintended consequences.

The Lords amendments would extend the reach of clause 13 to cover tentative allegations against teachers. As the Minister rightly pointed out, following advice from the trade unions and others, we argued that the clause’s reach could be extended so that the restrictions apply not only to teachers in schools but to other school staff. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart)—I am sure it is only a matter of time before he becomes a right hon. Gentleman—mentioned this earlier. In our view, other school staff and staff in further education colleges should be included. The impact of a publicly reported unproven allegation, which the Minister eloquently described, applies to those people, too, and is potentially equally damaging. I understand the Government’s general desire to limit the number of people on whom the provisions will have an impact, but I do not understand why teachers in FE colleges should not be covered when teachers dealing with young people of the same age group in sixth forms—quite possibly teaching exactly the same subjects—are covered. This seems to be an inconsistency in the Bill.

I note what the Minister said about extending the provisions to cover tentative allegations. I make it clear that we do not object to that, but we ask him to be absolutely clear about his motives for including the amendments at this stage. Does he have any further thoughts on the desirability of extending the scope to include non-teaching staff and all staff in FE colleges? If he has any compelling reasons why those staff should be excluded, we would like to hear them. Having listened to him earlier, I am not sure what his evidence is for excluding these staff from the scope of the provisions. I understand why he might want to limit the number of people covered—perhaps that is why he has put a ring fence around teachers—but I do not understand the rationale for failing to include the other staff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gibb]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the previous Administration, of which he was part, considered extending the fining power to Ofqual. Indeed, Kathleen Tattersall lobbied Members of Parliament for it to be introduced during the Committee stage of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill before the election. Ofqual will launch a consultation when it begins to set out the circumstances in which the new power will be used, and the consultation will last 12 weeks in the normal way.

[Kevin Brennan]

Not only am I aware of that, but I actually said about two minutes ago that it had originally been in the White Paper that the Labour Government introduced. That does not alter the fact that had the Government intended to do this, they could have consulted on it originally, rather than hang it as a bauble on a Christmas tree Bill and react to newspaper headlines. It seems that these proposals have been rushed. I welcome the fact that there is to be a proper consultation, but consultations should happen before proposals are enacted rather than after.

Lords amendments 18 and 19 remove clauses 30 and 31, which repeal the duties to co-operate with a local authority and to have regard to the children and young people’s plans. We welcome the Government’s support for reinstating the duty to co-operate by removing clauses 30 and 31. Labour Members on the Public Bill Committee voted that clause 30 should not stand part of the Bill, but Government Members defeated us. Baroness Hughes co-signed the amendments to leave out clauses 30 and 31, so we strongly support their removal. Had they remained part of the Bill, the Government would be putting the reduction of alleged bureaucracy ahead of the safeguarding needs of some of our most vulnerable children. In their professed zeal for cutting as many processes, systems and guidance as possible, the Government were in danger of throwing out things that raise standards and improve safeguards for our children. These duties are examples of the latter.

As I said in an intervention, in Committee the Minister characterised the duty to co-operate as an unnecessary prescription and went on to say that it was not appropriate to delay the removal of that burden on schools. In the Lords, Lord Laming spoke eloquently and convincingly to expose the irresponsibility of the Government’s position:

“In every inquiry that has followed a tragedy to a child with which I am familiar, two key messages have permeated every report like the lettering through a stick of rock. The first is that in future each service, including education, must greatly fulfil its particular responsibilities to promote the safety and well-being of each child. The second is that each service must develop the skills to work successfully across organisational boundaries and share information at an early stage.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. GC268.]

I can understand why the Government might have listened to Lord Laming more readily than they listened to us in the Commons, but they were fully aware of the views of Lord Laming and others on these matters.

Lord Laming went on to say:

“The development of children’s plans and children’s trusts under the Children Act 2004 were designed specifically to place the well-being and the promotion of care of children in this wider context. In the letter which the Minister sent to me, he said that the Bill simply reverts to the earlier position.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. GC268-269.]

So that was what the Government wanted to do: to revert to the earlier position—the one pre-Laming—using this Bill. By including these clauses, they originally showed their disdain for the services and processes that have since been put in place to keep our children safe. It is abhorrent that any Government, not least one who said at one time that they wanted to be the most family friendly ever, should be willing to risk the safety of our vulnerable children just so that they can reduce prescription.

I am glad that the Government have got it, albeit late in the day, but I am concerned that this is a temporary change of mind. I was not assured by what the Minister said in reply to my intervention, because Lord Hill’s letter to Baroness Hughes on 12 October said:

“We are persuaded that the duty in itself provides schools, colleges and others with sufficient freedom to determine the arrangements that work best for them”.

In a letter of 6 October 2011 to Baroness Hughes, he said that the reason for the Government’s change of mind was that this was a temporary measure while they worked through how to achieve better collaboration in the planning, commissioning and delivery of services.

I welcome the Lords amendments, but we want to strengthen them slightly. We have tabled an amendment that would ensure that schools must in all cases have regard to children and young people’s plans created by children’s trust boards, whether or not they are made under section 17 of the Children Act 2004. I should like an assurance from the Minister. Are the Government committed long term to a wide-ranging, overarching duty on schools to co-operate with local authorities and other local partners, which include health and police bodies, to promote the well-being of children? Is that a long-term commitment of the Government, or do they intend to water down or attempt once again to abolish the duty in the future?

[Mr Gibb]

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by quoting my noble Friend Lord Hill, who said in another place that he accepted the point made by our noble Friend Lady Walmsley that

“at a time when the Government have recently announced pathfinders to test and work through our SEN Green Paper proposals, which seek to encourage greater partnership working, we should not risk sending…any confusing messages about the importance of partnerships. I took their advice and decided that the simplest thing to do was to delete the relevant clauses.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 October 2011; Vol. 731, c. 634.]

[Kevin Brennan]

The interesting thing is that one reason why the Government became confused or were in danger of sending out confusing messages was the interminable delay in the publication of the Green Paper on SEN, which we were promised well before the consideration of the Bill in Committee and which finally turned up extremely late. Had it been published on time, perhaps the Government would not have been in danger of sending out confused messages, but I simply reiterate that we are concerned that the Government do not appear to have a long-term commitment to give schools an overarching duty to co-operate. We await confirmation from the Government that they believe that such an overarching duty to co-operate is important and should be retained in the long term.

Labour’s amendment (a) to Lords amendment 19 would require maintained schools to have regard to children and young people’s plans produced by children’s trust boards whether or not that is prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State. We voted in the Commons that clause 30 should not stand part of the Bill. Our amendment to delete clause 31 and insert another clause is intended to extend that opportunity for that omission to be retained.

The Government’s suggested changes to the law on the arrangements to admit pupils to school have been debated throughout the Bill’s passage through Parliament. On two occasions—on Report in the Commons and Lords—the Government have introduced amendments that have responded to some if not all the points made by the Opposition. The whole point about admissions is fairness and how we can have a system that gives children fair access to local schools in accordance with their parents’ wishes. In the centrally managed schools system that the Government are creating, it is regrettable that the Government have resisted placing a clear and unequivocal duty on the Secretary of State to work towards fair access to education.

We welcome the reinstatement of the duty on local authorities to send reports to the adjudicator, which is the effect of amendments 21 and 22. The fact that the reports will not now receive the special treatment for such reports, which is removed by amendment 20, is regrettable, although I hope that it does not lessen their importance and that the contents will still receive the full attention of the adjudicator. I trust that that is what will happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Brennan]

The Government made it clear during the Commons stage that they wished the academies to be subject to the admissions code. We welcomed that at the time and I am happy to welcome it now, because any state school should have a fair admissions policy. Any school funded by the taxpayer should admit pupils on a fair basis in accordance with the code. We therefore welcome the extension of the code to academies and the clarification of that by the Government, rather than relying on funding agreements in order to achieve that.

One of the innovations of the Bill that we debated is the change to the powers of the schools adjudicator. Currently, when an admissions authority is found to be in breach of the code, the adjudicator can rectify any flaws with immediate effect, but following the passage of the Bill, the adjudicator will be able to make only “binding” decisions, which the admissions authority will be obliged to implement. Ministers have already made it clear that the purpose of that change is to emphasise the importance of schools taking responsibility for their own actions, but it should not allow them the scope to avoid those responsibilities or to frustrate parents who have made a successful complaint and have a legitimate expectation that matters will be put right promptly.

The draft version of the admissions code was pretty clear. Paragraph 3.1 stated:

“The admission authority must revise their admission arrangements immediately to give effect to the Adjudicator’s decision.”

That was the original version of the code issued by the Minister, which was pretty clear and unambiguous, as it should be. However, I was dismayed to read in the revised version of the draft code, published 10 days ago, that paragraph 3.1 has been changed. It now states:

“The admission authority must where necessary revise their admission arrangements as quickly as possible and no later than 15 April following the decisions (i.e. the deadline for determination of admission arrangements) to give effect to the Adjudicator’s decision.”

It is not clear from reading out those two sentences, but there is an important difference in their visual presentation. In the first sentence the word “must” is rendered in bold, whereas in the second sentence it is in plain text and “15 April” appears in bold. The proper sense of urgency and compulsion seems to have been replaced by one of contingency and delay. Although the second sentence states “as quickly as possible”, which is a weaker statement, the eye is drawn to “15 April”. Bearing in mind that the deadline for objections has been brought forward by a month to 30 June—a sensible change that we support—that means that there could be a delay of 10 months or more before a decision is implemented, which is simply unacceptable.

It is not necessarily for the legislation or the new code to undermine the effectiveness of the office of the adjudicator in a wholly unnecessary attempt to provide for circumstances that have not proved problematic under previous arrangements, so our amendment would put it beyond doubt that, where changes are required in response to valid objections, they must be implemented in time to benefit those who made them.

On constituting governing bodies, to which the Minister referred, it might be helpful if he offered some clarification. Our amendment was intended to make it absolutely clear what the Government’s amendments mean in relation to staff on governing bodies. In Committee, the Minister said:

“I am cautious about prescribing centrally the basis on which governing bodies should appoint people.”––[Official Report, Education Public Bill Committee, 31 March 2011; c. 811.]

Having had time to consider the matter, the Government and the Minister appear to have changed their minds completely. If that is the case, we welcome it. Will the Minister confirm that he now thinks that more than one member of staff could be a member of a governing body, which might help us in relation to our amendment? If he does so now, he might not need to later.

[Mr Gibb]

I am happy to confirm that we want to reduce the amount of prescription on how to constitute a governing body. After deliberation and discussions with Members of this House and in another place, we have said that we will prescribe one staff member and one local authority representative, but that does not remove the discretion of governing bodies to appoint others; it is merely stating that there should be one staff member and one local authority member.

[Kevin Brennan]

That is extremely helpful. The Minister’s words will probably satisfy us so that we need not press that amendment to a vote later.

The chief inspector and the question of whether schools can be exempted from inspection were the subject of our earlier debate and of some interventions by me, the Chair of the Education Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who is no longer in his place—I almost said Grimsby, but it is important to get the right part of Lincolnshire. Those remarks, and what the Prime Minister said earlier today about coasting schools, bring the issue more clearly into focus. As it stands, the clause removes the requirement for Ofsted—in other words, the chief inspector—to inspect and issue a report on each school in England, at a frequency set out in regulations, that rates the overall quality of the school and sets out its areas for improvement. Clause 41 will have a similar effect on further education institutions, which will be debated in the second group of amendments.

In effect, the provisions would exempt certain schools from section 5 inspections. Furthermore, the exemption would not be for a fixed number of years, and neither would a school be exempt only until something indicated that standards needed to be re-checked, such as a complaint from parents or pupils, a change of head, or concern being expressed by the local authority. It is possible that, under the clause, some schools could be exempt from inspections almost in perpetuity unless they wanted to pay for one.

It was pointed out earlier that a school could still be inspected under the chief inspector’s programme of surveys of curriculum subjects and thematic reviews, during which time the chief inspector may elect to treat the inspection as a partial section 5 inspection. However, that does not mean that every school would be inspected—far from it. In the case of the curriculum and thematic reviews, only parts of the school’s performance would be looked at.

The Prime Minister said earlier today that he was concerned that comprehensives in wealthy villages and market towns were sometimes coasting, although I do not know why he picked out comprehensives; that could apply equally to grammar schools in some parts of the country. He said that the fact that their

“respectable results and a decent local reputation”

hid the fact that their pupils could be performing much better. We know how quickly schools can move, for a variety of reasons, from being outstanding to what the Prime Minister describes as “coasting”. The Opposition’s proposals to provide more triggers for inspections when real concerns arise should have been accepted by the Government.

When Sir Michael Wilshaw gave evidence to the Select Committee on 1 November 2011, during his pre-appointment hearing before taking on his role as the new chief inspector of Ofsted, he said:

“Ofsted is about raising standards and it seems to me that there are only two levers for raising standards; one is Government and regulation, and the other is Ofsted.”

He later went on to correct himself, saying that he meant “two main levers”, stating:

“In terms of accountability, Government and Ofsted are the two main levers.”

In relation to the amendments, will the Minister tell us whether he agrees with the new chief inspector of schools in that regard?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stuart]

Yes, and Alison Wolf suggested in her report that more 14 to 16-year-olds should attend FE colleges, so this provision would affect them as well as 17 to 18-year-olds, for whom the provision might be less relevant. I hope Ministers will think about this anomaly and find a way of equalising the situation.

The Government make what seems like a very reasonable case on strengthening Ofqual’s enforcement powers. Ofqual does not have as wide-ranging powers as other regulators, and there is a very quick step from its making requirements on awarding bodies to the nuclear option of removing their ability to provide awards at all. It therefore seems reasonable to have more moderate powers in the middle, such as the power to make fines, but this Government are committed not to following such easy logic unless there is a very strong—nay, an overwhelming—case for giving new powers to some non-governmental, unelected quango, such as Ofqual, so in an intervention I asked the Minister to make the case. He made a brave effort, as he always does, being a highly esteemed colleague and an excellent schools Minister, but he really did not make the case.

We did not hear about the number of times that awarding bodies have deliberately flouted Ofqual’s requirements—that OCR, when required to do something by Ofqual, just ignored it, left it as long as possible and did it only if it felt like it; or that the lack of anything other than a nuclear button meant that OCR did not want to comply.

Following this summer’s examination paper errors fiasco, no one was more embarrassed and determined to put it right than the awarding bodies. They collectively and individually felt that it was embarrassing, and they wanted to put it right as quickly as they could. The numbers were somewhat higher than in previous years, but the attention paid to them this year was rather greater than the increase in problems, and I know at least one case in which there was only one error in 100,000 questions.

I want to see all such errors eliminated and to know that those bodies are straining every sinew to put the situation right, but I am not yet convinced that a fining regime, however conveniently it may fulfil the Prime Minister’s promise to do something about the situation, is the right approach.

[Mr Gibb]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

rose—

[Mr Stuart]

I give way to the Minister.

[Mr Gibb]

The measure is about incentives. If a not-for-profit or commercial operation seeks to ensure that there are no errors, the exponential cost of ensuring that there are zero errors is a cost to that organisation, so the fining powers provide an equal and opposite cost to the organisations that do not incur those costs to do their best to eliminate errors. That is the purpose of the fining provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention. As Chairman of the Select Committee, he is very knowledgeable in this area, and I look forward to discussing the issue with him further. Let me add a couple of additional concerns. Although we agree on the overall direction of travel, we might also reach some concordance over concerns.

The proposal in Lords amendment 37 is to deal with this issue through setting up pilot schemes in some areas. I am in favour of that. What will be the benefit for children with special educational needs? Their parents already put an enormous amount of effort into supporting their children. We call on them not only to go out and work hard, but to provide that support at home and that takes up an enormous amount of time. To place on top of that the burden of an individual budget—however it is implemented—places significant additional burdens. Let me explain a couple of them.

I have spoken to parents of children with special educational needs in my constituency. Overall, they are enthusiastic about some of the proposals in the Government’s Green Paper, but they strongly voiced their concern about the complexity of placing additional burdens on parents. They want these responsibilities, but the complexity involved is significant.

[Mr Gibb]

It will not be compulsory to have a direct payment. It will be an option that parents can take up if they wish. The fears that my hon. Friend expresses should not come to pass.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen McPartland]

My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point, but I must stop myself agreeing with him. I believe that the reputational risk is only a very small part of the problem with Ofqual’s relationship with awarding organisations. The problem is that Ofqual has only the nuclear option, to which the Minister referred, of saying, “You are either in or out.” I imagine that causes a great deal of conflict in Ofqual when it investigates an organisation. My hon. Friend knows from his vast business experience that the cost of doing business is often factored into every meeting, and I have no doubt that the cost of engaging with Ofqual is included in every meeting.

[Mr Gibb]

I want to put on the record the fact that Ofqual will consult on the definition of turnover it will use for the 10% figure. Other regulators have always defined turnover in relation to regulated activities and not beyond them.

[Stephen McPartland]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. One of the little-known problems with Ofqual’s relationship with awarding organisations is that often when it requests information the organisations can ignore it—I am not saying they do so—because they know that Ofqual only really has the nuclear option; it can either engage with them or not engage. That becomes the organisations’ point of view on the relationship they want with the regulator, rather than the view of the regulator in trying to regulate the industry. We referred to the industry earlier as a market, and it is worth almost £1 billion a year in the UK. There are 182 awarding organisations.

[Stephen McPartland]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend, because reputational risk is very important. The problem is simply that it comes back to reputational risk and the nuclear option, as many awarding organisations can take a chance and build into their business models the number of mistakes they can make before they appear in national headlines. I am not saying that that is what they are doing, but with Ofqual’s current position there is a very odd situation in which the awarding organisations can identify the relationship they want with the regulator, rather than the regulator regulating the industry.

Providing Ofqual with the ability to fine awarding organisations at 10% allows it to say, “If you don’t comply and engage with us, we can fine you up to 10%.” I agree with the Minister that there will no doubt be a sliding scale and that it will be introduced with consultation, but the key point, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) noted earlier, relates to the Japanese example of smashing one circuit in 1,000 to ensure that they comply. We do not want one mistake to ensure that Ofqual and the awarding organisations comply with one another; we want them to have a relationship based on trust and understanding and, as a last resort, for there to be the threat of fine if the awarding organisations do not engage with Ofqual. Reputational risk is important, but I think that we all understand that what affects people ultimately is the bottom line: what profit they are making and how they are engaging. That is what is important, because that is what they are employed to do. I broadly agree with the Ofqual situation. There is a bit of conflict, because it means giving a quango more powers, but in this situation I think that that is correct.

We also had a robust and prolonged debate on Ofsted, with many interventions. There was a suggestion that some schools would not be inspected for perhaps 10, 15 or 20 years, but in practice that is unrealistic. I was under the impression that when a new head teacher took over a school, particularly a primary school, traditionally that would trigger an Ofsted inspection within a couple of years. I understand that under the Bill’s provisions Her Majesty’s chief inspector of schools will trial a new approach so that, when a new head teacher takes over, the inspector will contact the school to discuss the performance and the head teacher’s plans for the future, which I think is a much more effective way of working with outstanding schools.

Triggers have been mentioned. I understand that there will be a guaranteed minimum re-inspection rate of 5% and that governors, through the powers and freedoms we are allowing them—the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) spoke effectively about this in Committee on several occasions—will be able to say that they are losing confidence in how things are going. If parent governors in our constituencies believe that children are not getting access to the best education, they phone their MP or local authority straight away to demand the best for their children. That would also ensure that those schools will have the best from the new freedom to engage and not to be inspected every couple of years.

On a wider note, I am pleased that Ofsted will no longer give six or seven weeks’ notice of inspections. The notice period had meant that teaches would often work for 15 or 16 hours a day for six or seven weeks, including weekends, to try to ensure that their school is seen at its best. I do not believe that that is the best way of conducting inspections. What Ofsted is doing at the moment is giving a couple of days’ notice before turning up, which provides a much better reflection of the school. As the years go by, that will provide a much better snapshot of what is happening.

Also, the freedoms for academies in the Bill will lift education across every constituency and local education authority area. Competition is the wrong word to use in a debate on education, but those schools, head teachers and teachers will be seeking to attract the best children. It is important to focus on providing the children with the best schools. Many of the outstanding schools will not now be inspected as often as before, but they will be spending their time helping neighbouring schools that do not have the best procedures in place to move towards becoming outstanding. I welcome the Bill’s proposals in this area.

My final point relates to direct payments for special educational needs. The Minister said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford that people would be able to opt into this process, and I am grateful to him for that, because I would have had great hesitation in supporting any kind of compulsory measure. Now that the Minister has clarified the position, however, I can support the proposal.

[Mr Gibb]

With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to this interesting debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), for Bedford (Richard Fuller), for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) for their thoughtful contributions, and I shall respond to as many of their points as possible, in addition to speaking to the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan).

The hon. Member for Cardiff West asked me to say a little more about Lords amendments 1 to 4, which relate to interim prohibition orders. Since the Bill’s introduction, it has included a new power for the Secretary of State to make such orders. Many regulators have a power of that kind for use in the rare cases when it is in the public interest to bar an individual while an investigation is under way, prior to a final decision being made. When the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee scrutinised the Bill, it asked about the safeguards that were going to be put in place. As a matter of policy, we intended the issue of interim suspension orders to be possible only when it was in the public interest, and subject to regular six-monthly reviews when requested. The Committee suggested that those quality safeguards be placed on the face of the Bill. The amendments were debated briefly in Grand Committee before being made in the other place.

On extending teacher anonymity, we have to proceed on the basis of evidence in restricting press freedom. I have already cited the findings of our survey. Teachers are much more likely to be the subject of allegations than other staff in schools. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the teachers of 16 to 19-year-olds in further education colleges, but the evidence from the survey shows that just 1% of allegations related to teachers in FE colleges, compared with 23% relating to school teachers. The NASUWT’s records show that, in the past 10 complete years, it has provided a solicitor in relation to 1,592 cases of allegations against teachers, of which 1,439 resulted in no further action being taken.

The survey related to local authority designated officers—LADOs—and the total number of allegations of abuse that were referred to LADOs in the 116 local authorities that responded to the survey was 12,086, of which 2,827, or 23%, related to teachers. Of those, allegations of abuse related to 0.6% of the teaching profession as a whole. That means that there are 1.5 times as many allegations against teachers as against support staff, which had a figure of 0.4% of the total non-teaching population.

On the basis of that survey, I believe that we have got this measure right. I say with all due respect to my hon. Friends that we must not let the best become the enemy of the good. I have heard Members on all sides of the debate today pushing to extend the measure to more staff, and not to extend it to teachers because of the effect that it has on them, but I think that we have got it just about right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is right to quote the Prime Minister, who in turn is right to identify this issue. What practical steps can be taken under the current regime to target those schools that are above the floor targets for five good GCSEs and that have limited resources for Ofsted? How will it be possible to ensure that they get the focus that the Prime Minister, the Minister and I would like to see?

[Mr Gibb]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sure that the Minister will ensure that his response is relevant to the amendments that we are discussing.

[Mr Gibb]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of your ruling, I will make just one point to my hon. Friend which is relevant to the amendments. The performance tables will identify the results and show how well children did at primary school. There will be a column for children who achieve level 5 at key stage 2, and another column for those who achieve level 3 at key stage 2. There will also be columns for those with special educational needs and those with disabilities. That will help to identify those schools that are coasting, and we will then take action against those schools or help them to improve their results.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West also talked about triggers for inspections. That is a matter for Her Majesty’s chief inspector, but I can confirm that there will be annual risk assessment for outstanding schools, which will normally commence three years after the last inspection. Where there is a change of head teacher before that point, however, the chief inspector has agreed to bring forward the risk assessment, including an HMI review. Ultimately, however, we have to leave it to the professional judgment of the inspector to determine whether an inspection should be triggered. Factors to be taken into account might include: the performance data of a school that had previously been judged to be less than outstanding in achievement or teaching not showing signs of improvement since its last inspection; progress measures showing that pupils or students were not making good progress in comparison with similar groups nationally; or below-average attendances showing little sign of improvement. Many factors can act as a trigger for an inspection.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of admissions. I thank him for his attention to detail in scrutinising the codes, but I can assure him that they are statutory. “Must” means “must” in those codes; they have the full force of the law. On his wider point, the vast majority of the changes can be implemented quickly, but there are cases in which they might take longer than 14 days, at which point 15 April will form an ultimate backstop. The key point in paragraph 3.1 of the code states that the adjudicator’s direction should be implemented as quickly as possible.

[Kevin Brennan]

I thank the Minister for his comments. Would he be prepared to put it on the record that going right up to 15 April should happen only on very rare occasions, rather than in the majority or a large minority of cases?

[Mr Gibb]

What I will put on the record are the words used in paragraph 3.1 of the code, which states that admission authorities must where necessary revise their admission arrangements as quickly as possible, and no later than 15 April, following the decisions to give effect to the adjudicator’s decision. It goes on:

“An Adjudicator’s determination is binding and enforceable.”

I will come back to that point when I address the hon. Gentleman’s amendments in more detail.

On Ofqual, the power to fine would be used only where that was the most proportionate response to an incident of non-compliance with its conditions. As I have said, Ofqual will consult on the use of its power and will publish a full statement as part of its qualifications regulatory framework setting out how and under what circumstances the power will be used. That will make clear Ofqual’s expectation that only serious or persistent breaches will lead to a fine. Of course, it will allow 12 weeks for responses to that consultation.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Can my hon. Friend give examples of instances in which such a measure might have been triggered in the past?

[Mr Gibb]

The incidents I would cite are those from this summer when there were persistent errors. The persistence came, in particular, after we had asked the awarding organisations to check that there were no further errors. They did those checks and confirmed that there were none, but then further errors were discovered and damage was caused. That is an example of persistence in the errors we are trying to eliminate from the system.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West asked for an explanation regarding Lords amendments 89 to 91 about land. The Bill introduces new powers to transfer the publicly funded land of foundation and voluntary schools and academies to free schools and academies when those schools close or the land is to be otherwise disposed of. Lords amendments 89 to 91 reduce the reach of those new powers so that they do not apply to land that is leased to a new academy by a private landlord. Where we are engaging in commercial negotiations with private landlords for the lease of land to new free schools, we think it is more appropriate to protect any public investment in that land by contractual means rather than in statute.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the PFI issue and I am happy to restate the purpose of amendment 34. Under section 6(2) of the Academies Act 2010, a local authority “must cease to maintain” a school once it converts to academy status. Some banks and local authorities have asked whether that prohibition on maintenance might prevent a local authority from making a payment under PFI or other contracts. Our view is that local authorities have always been able to use their own resources to provide assistance, including financial assistance, to academies and to enter into contractual commitments and incur liabilities on their behalf. We are clear that section 6(2) of the Academies Act does not prevent the continuation of those activities. All academies are and will continue to be maintained by the Secretary of State under funding arrangements entered into under section 1 of the Academies Act, and any assistance provided by local authorities to academies, whether financial or otherwise, will only ever be a proportion of the total expense. Amendment 34 therefore confirms that local authorities can continue to make payments for academies under PFI and other contracts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and the hon. Member for Cardiff West raised the issue of direct payment pilots. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who has responsibility for children and families, wrote to peers in the other place explaining the importance of introducing this new clause and consulted on the text of the draft clause, including in relation to special educational needs and disability organisations as well as local government interests. The principles behind the clause—greater choice and control for the families of children with SEN—are shared across the House. Indeed, the clause is modelled on legislation on the direct payment health pilots that were introduced by the previous Government. Let me reassure hon. Members that the orders needed to give practical effect to the clauses are subject to the affirmative procedure. These are, after all, powers concerning pilots rather than a national scheme and the clause has a sunset provision of four years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness asked about anyone being able to refer complaints to the adjudicator. We do not believe this change will lead to many more complaints. The regulations on which we are currently consulting will ensure that repetitive, vexatious or anonymous complaints cannot be made. I hope that will provide him with some reassurance. On the issue of spite, which he also raised, “anyone” does mean anyone, so it could be a school or a charity. The only proviso is that they must be willing to put their name to objections and to refer matters that are new or substantially new to the adjudicator.

My hon. Friend asked about consistency in the referral of misconduct cases by schools to the regulator. Evidence suggests that there is already variation in referrals despite the blanket duty on employers to refer all cases, and this duty has not been affected. Employers will know when a case of misconduct is serious enough potentially to require a referral from the profession, and they can use the draft prohibition guidance, which I can send to my hon. Friend, to help them make this decision. If a member of the public is not happy with the decision, they can refer a complaint to the Secretary of State.

My hon. Friend also asked about Ofsted’s capacity to deliver more rigorous assessments. We have discussed and agreed the more rigorous risk assessment, and Ofsted has the resources necessary within its budget to achieve this. Every organisation has to prioritise its resources in the current economic climate and Ofsted is no different.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford for his continued and vocal support for academies and free schools. I assure him that it is right that admissions at academies and free schools must comply with the admissions code as set out in their funding agreements. As with all other state-funded schools, complaints about admissions will now go to the adjudicator.

My hon. Friend also raised concerns about particular families who do not adopt personal budgets—one third is the figure he cited—and the support they require. He argues for having pilots, and that is what the new clause does. I share his concerns about the possible burdens on families. That is why the pilots will look at the support available to families and how the system can be as straightforward as possible to use, as well as at which families take up those payments and which do not. On the point that the hon. Member for Cardiff West made, cost-cutting is not a driver for this policy—it is about having greater choice and control.

On the issue of Ofqual and how the Conservatives could support a regime of fining by a regulator, my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire set out the reasons why the qualifications market needs to be regulated. I should like to make it clear that turnover will be determined in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State and that Ofqual will consult on how the fining regime is to operate.

I listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford and for Stevenage about primary schools. Primary national offer day will be 16 April. The idea is to co-ordinate the date rather than to put any new pressure on parents to get their children into certain primary schools. It merely makes things easier and less stressful for parents rather than more stressful.

Let me deal briefly with some of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff West. He will know that we have listened carefully to the concerns expressed in this House and in the other place in response to our original intention to withdraw schools and colleges from the duty to co-operate. The evidence of that engagement is clear in these Lords amendments. We have removed the “duty to co-operate” clause as well as the clause that the hon. Gentleman seeks to amend regarding the children and young people’s plan.

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment (a) to Lords amendment 23 relates to our plans to allow anyone to refer an objection to the schools adjudicator about the admissions arrangements at any state-funded school in the country. The amendment would require admissions authorities and others to comply with the adjudicator’s decision within 14 days of receiving written notice of that decision. Current legislation in this area, which was introduced by the Labour party, requires compliance to be forthwith. Let me assure the House once more that our changes to admissions do not affect the adjudicator’s power to consider and decide on the matter put to him and other matters as he sees fit, or to make binding decisions as a consequence. The amendment would impose a stringent national timetable for the implementation of such decisions. It is based on two false assumptions—first that schools do not wish to put things right, which they do, and secondly that all situations are the same, which they are not. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment to a Division.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful to the Minister for those comments, but can he firm up what he has said by making it clear from the Dispatch Box that he sees no reason why, in the vast majority of cases, the schools adjudicator’s ruling should not be implemented if not forthwith, then within a very short period of time and certainly not at the last possible moment?

[Mr Gibb]

I have already responded to the hon. Gentleman’s point by quoting paragraph 3.1 of the admissions code. That makes it very clear that these changes should be made as soon as possible and that they are binding.

On school governing bodies, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud for speaking up for the key role governors play in schools and for the important work he is undertaking in establishing the all-party group on school governors. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) for his helpful intervention on staff and local authority governors and for his welcome for the amendments he has inspired. We have made concessions on staff and local authority governors, and I therefore hope the amendment in question will not be pressed.

Lords amendment 27 on the regulations specifying which schools are to be exempt from routine inspection was made because of a specific concern raised by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: that regulations made through the negative procedure could be extended beyond outstanding schools to whole categories of school—such as all academies or all faith schools—regardless of their inspection history, without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. To provide reassurance on that, the Government propose that any subsequent changes to the first set of regulations, which have been made available to Members as indicative regulations since March, would require approval through the affirmative procedure. The amendment made in the other place will allow for appropriate scrutiny by Parliament. It is not necessary for the first set of regulations to be subject to that because it has been fully consulted on. We shall reflect on the points raised both in this debate and elsewhere before finalising those regulations.

I hope the amendments to the Lords amendments will not be pressed to a Division, and I commend the Lords amendments to the House.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 26 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 16 and 23.

Clause 39

School inspections: exempt schools

Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 27.—(Kevin Brennan.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

19:03

Division 395

Ayes: 196

---

Labour: 191
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 284

---

Conservative: 237
Liberal Democrat: 46

Lords amendment 27 agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

Inspection of further education institutions: exempt institutions

[The Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning (Mr John Hayes)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 28.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient—

[Mr Hayes]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

If the Minister could just hold himself back for a second, with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 29, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 36, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 39, 43, 47 to 71, 99 and 100.

[Mr Hayes]

My enthusiasm to rise to speak to the amendments is indicative of the thorough scrutiny that the Bill has enjoyed here and in the other place, and of the spirit in which that scrutiny has taken place.

If I may, I shall speak first to Lords amendments 47 to 71, which make important changes to schedule 12 and further strengthen the provisions that strip away unnecessary central controls over the governance and dissolution arrangements of further education colleges and sixth-form colleges.

You, Madam Deputy Speaker, with your usual assiduity, will have seen those provisions in the context of the Education Act 1944. In bringing that legislation to the House, the then President of the Board of Education as he was known, Rab Butler, said that it is not possible

“to start colleges ‘out of the blue,’… It is essential that the House should realise that direction by the State from the top is not the right way to administer this vast matter. What is wanted is to encourage the desires, appetites and feelings of those who wish for different forms of adult education and then to try to meet them as far as possible. As long as we follow that line, I can tell the House that it is our desire to reform and bring up to date the adult education system and to make a great stride forward in this regard.”—[Official Report, 12 May 1944; Vol. 399, c. 2261.]

Just as a stride forward was made then, so a stride forward is being made now, although I would not claim to be as great as that very noble and distinguished gentleman, Mr Butler.

In speaking to these amendments, however, the important thing to make clear is the Government’s absolute unwavering and unabridged commitment to the creation of a freer, more responsive further education and skills system—one that is based upon the principles of fairness, shared responsibility and freedom from central Government controls.

I say that not for any doctrinaire reason, but simply because of this enduring truth: unless we make the system sufficiently nimble to respond to dynamic demand, it will not be fit for purpose. Through the Bill, and in that spirit, we propose to remove a raft of unnecessary and prescriptive duties and to reduce the control of the Government and their agencies over the affairs of colleges.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I have written a letter to the Minister on what he has been saying about apprenticeships and supply and demand for apprenticeship places. I am not talking about funding because we have had the debate about the Government providing funding; I am talking about employment opportunities. Is he aware that a training provider called the Liverpool Construction Academy in my constituency is due to close its doors on 25 November, with the loss of hundreds of apprenticeship opportunities and the jobs that go with them?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is a great champion of apprenticeships, having been an apprentice himself. He understands the value of apprenticeships in providing people with the skills not only to get a job, but to lead more fulfilled lives. I hear what he says about his particular constituency interest and he will expect me to respond in a similar spirit by saying that I am more than happy to meet him to discuss that matter in some detail. However, I am sure he understands that you will not allow me to go into great detail about that tonight, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I applaud what my hon. Friend has said so far. Does he appreciate that there is an ongoing demand for apprenticeships, particularly in the historic vehicle restoration movement, where expertise is needed? Any burning of red tape in that industry that would lead people to take on more apprenticeships would be most welcome.

[Mr Hayes]

As ever, my right hon. Friend makes a valued, wise and richly-coloured contribution to our affairs. His expertise in that field is unparalleled in this House and, of course, I take his recommendation seriously; indeed, he has raised the issue with me already. As he knows, I can tell the House that I am taking up the matter with an assiduity that is a mere token compared with his diligence, which has brought him such prowess in this place and elsewhere.

[Mr Knight]

Although I am delighted at what the Minister has said about me, I suppose he and I ought to declare an interest because we both may need the services of future apprentices in maintaining our historic vehicles.

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend is right. We ought to declare that we share an interest in that topic and that we might have some personal interest in ensuring that there are sufficient craft skills to maintain our historic vehicles—although his demands in those terms are considerably more numerous than mine.

The sector has welcomed the proposals to offer colleges more freedom. Colleges have long called for such an approach. In the long years that I spent in the shadows before the electorate elevated me to the light, I remember hearing from colleges across the country that they hoped, wished and longed for a Government who would recognise that power is best vested in the hands of those closest to where it is exercised. Colleges should be able to respond to their learners and employers in the way the Bill facilitates. It is therefore unsurprising that, in the public evidence sessions of the Bill, the Association of Colleges said in written evidence that the legislative requirements removed by the Bill,

“will strengthen rather than diminish the historic community role of Colleges and strengthen the importance of strong governance”.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Lords amendments 47 to 71, changes which I recognise were made late in the Bill’s passage through the other place, have been made in the context of a changed further education landscape. In October 2010, the Office for National Statistics announced its decision to reclassify FE colleges to the public sector for the purposes of the national accounts. That decision exposes colleges to the full rigours of the Government expenditure regime and means that they will lose the flexibility to phase expenditure between different financial years and that they will need to work within a financial year that does not line up with their academic year. Such a decision also makes it likely that the very freedoms that were introduced to enable them to borrow without seeking permission will need to be taken away from them, and that even tighter constraints will need to be introduced.

I would like to thank Baroness Sharp for raising those issues in the context of the sterling work she is doing as chair of the inquiry into colleges in their communities. In debating these important amendments, it is vital for me to emphasise the significance of the ONS decision. We were already well on the way to freeing the sector from some of the diktats, bureaucracy and unnecessary regulation that had so hampered and inhibited people from exercising their long-cherished desire to respond proactively to the interests of learners in the way I have described. Nevertheless, the ONS’s reclassification has turned our desire into an imperative and we are working closely to try to persuade it to rethink that classification, because it will have profound effects on the FE sector. The late changes made in the other place, which we are debating for the first time in this House today, were made because of that ONS classification. Those and other controls would all act as significant barriers to college growth and would stifle innovation and creativity in our further education sector. As I said, it is our intention to make the necessary legislative and administrative changes to encourage the ONS to reclassify colleges back to the private sector which, as my noble friend Lord Hill said in the other place, is where successive Governments have wished them to be.

I want to mention the ability that Lords amendments 49, 58 and 69 will give colleges to modify or replace their instruments and articles of governance. In the world I have described—the picture I have painted—the additional freedoms that colleges will enjoy necessitate a new approach to governance. We need colleges to rise to the occasion. I am confident that they will, but it is partly a case of rethinking how colleges are governed. Colleges will continue to be required to comply with a statutory governance framework, but that has been significantly simplified to allow colleges the freedom to decide how best to shape their governance arrangements to meet the needs of their learners, employers and the local community.

May I say a word about the work that the Association of Colleges is doing in that regard? The association is working on a set of model instruments and articles that are framed in the new environment of greater discretion and freedom. There is immense human capital in colleges but, too often, it has been locked up because of the approach taken by previous Governments. There was a view that it was best to dictate, predict and provide from the centre. That is not this Government’s view. For example, as a result of the amendments, colleges will no longer have to seek the Government’s permission to add more members to their governing body or to determine whether a job vacancy should be advertised nationally.

Those are important aspects of a college’s governance, but they are not things in which the state should be involved. The use of that power will not be compulsory. If colleges are content that their existing arrangements support them to meet the needs of local learners and employers, they will not have to change them. The benefit of the changes is that the decision over when and how colleges exercise those powers sits firmly with them. I mentioned that such measures have been welcomed by colleges themselves. They were, for the most part, also warmly welcomed in the other place.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

The Minister is making an excellent speech on the amendments. Will he tell us whether the Lords amendments will make it easier for colleges to work in partnership with schools or to offer and perhaps enrol pupils themselves at secondary level? He may know about a college in my area that wanted to enrol pupils but could not do so unless it went through the pupil referral unit route and they were classed as excluded. Will these changes make it easier for a college to work in partnership with schools in the local area?

[Mr Hayes]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that these changes will enable colleges to form new kinds of partnerships and collaborations with other institutions in the sector and beyond, with businesses, and with a whole range of community-based organisations. I see this as an opportunity for a more eclectic system that is as different as the needs of each locality. I do not want to see a vanilla-flavoured product dictated from the centre; I do not want that kind of ugly ubiquity to characterise our further education system.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Mr Hayes]

On the point of ugly ubiquity, I happily give way to my hon. Friend.

[Bob Stewart]

In my constituency we have Bromley college, and I have been speaking to people there. Will these changes allow Bromley college to control more properly the fees that it has to charge? At the moment, it is affiliated to Greenwich university and is being forced to charge fees that it does not want to charge, which is very much against the spirit of what we are trying to do. Can it have the freedom to seek other partnerships in the way that we have been discussing—for ordinary degrees, for example? There must be some way in which colleges, which we all want to charge the minimum fees, can actually charge those minimum fees rather than be forced to raise them.

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend is the very antithesis of both ugliness and ubiquity; indeed, he is known for his integrity and truthfulness. As Keats understood, and Shaftesbury in the other place later, truth and beauty are intrinsically linked, and so my hon. Friend’s truthfulness has an aesthetic all of its own. On the specific point that he raises, the way in which colleges have, over time, been dictated to and controlled from the centre has largely been about funding mechanisms. Colleges have danced to a tune set around funding. He is absolutely right to say that greater freedom means being more flexible about funding. It means allowing colleges to devise the kind of offer that is right for their locality in the kinds of partnerships that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) described, and funding needs to reflect that.

We are on a journey, and not all of it can be done overnight. When I came into the job, I was able to put in place a number of important changes that stripped away some of the central control. Since that time, we have done more, and these amendments go a step further. But this is not the end of the journey. The destination we seek is what I began to describe a moment ago—a more eclectic, more responsive and more dynamic system. I am not, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, one to overstate my virtues, but I would go so far as to say that what we are doing in further education is a model of public service reform: a deregulated system that is free to respond to local circumstances; dynamic and innovative; flexible and, in my judgment, imaginative—I make no apology for using that word—about exactly what it does and how it does it; and uses funding to feed that kind of new beginning. As I said, though, I do not want to overstate the case.

[Mr Knight]

rose—

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hayes]

Once more, and then I must return to my notes.

[Mr Stuart]

My hon. Friend could see one of the reasons for the need for flexibility if he came to visit Beverley, as I have frequently invited him to do, where our excitement grows with each delay until he does so. He would see the area where the new East Riding college was to have been built but, because of the mess that was made of FE capital funding under the previous Administration, it looks like a bomb site in the middle of Beverley. As we move forward with these freedoms and with the excellent leadership that we have at East Riding college, I hope that we will see the college on that site in the near future.

[Mr Hayes]

Every day a new invitation for me to visit a different part of the country arrives, each one more seductive than the last, but none more attractive than the overtures of my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee. Tonight I will do what I rarely do in the House: I commit, from the Dispatch Box, to visit his college, because he has made this case so frequently and persuasively that I feel that I have been less than generous in my response thus far. I will certainly come to look at the specific circumstances that he described in his—as usual—pithy and well-informed intervention.

[Mr Knight]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

I will give way once more to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole and then I must return to my text.

[Andrew Percy]

Now that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) has seduced the Minister into visiting East Riding, can he, while he is there, show us a bit of ankle and come to visit Goole as well?

[Mr Hayes]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Perhaps I may help the Minister by saying that if he returns to his notes, his diary might not get so full.

[Mr Hayes]

That is wise advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is taken in the spirit in which it is given.

[Mr Knight]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hayes]

No, I will make a little progress, if I may, and then I will give way again.

[Mr Knight]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I have made it clear that I am not going to give way at this juncture, because I fear that my right hon. Friend is trying to encourage me to stray, but I will give way to him in a few moments when I have made a little more progress.

There was a debate in the other place on the importance of staff and student governors in colleges. Ensuring strong staff and student representation on a governing body is of importance to me. During the passage of the Bill, I have had positive discussions with the National Union of Students and the University and College Union on this subject, as has my noble Friend Lord Hill. We were anxious to ensure that staff and student involvement helped not only to inform good practice in colleges but to shape the offer in those colleges. As a result of those discussions, we continue to require colleges to have such governors on their boards. The House will want to be reminded that this requirement was warmly supported by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, who was

“pleased…that this commitment”

was

“honoured in both spirit and practice in the amendment”

that was brought before the Lords and that we are discussing this evening. In fact, Baroness Jones went further and acknowledged that our amendment

“is indeed better than that tabled by those on our own Benches on this issue”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 November 2011; Vol. 732, c. 332.]

How often does one receive a tribute as generous, but as deserved, as that?

I now happily give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight).

[Mr Knight]

I am most grateful to the Minister, who is being very generous in giving way. He spoke earlier about taking us on a journey, and even earlier he quoted Rab Butler. May I remind him of what Rab Butler said about journeys—that it is best to get off the train before it hits the buffers? With the light-touch approach that the Minister is suggesting, is there not a danger that some colleges may move assets overseas, to the detriment of the British taxpayer?

[Mr Hayes]

It is true, of course, that as we free up the system, some of the controls that have previously been in place—some of the levers that the Government could pull—will no longer be there. Frankly, however, I have to say to my right hon. Friend, to whose assiduity, eloquence and wisdom I have previously paid tribute, that if the price of freedom is that loss of control, it is a price worth paying for the benefit it brings in the kind of innovation, exercise of imagination, responsiveness and dynamism to which I drew the House’s attention earlier. That was certainly the view of the other place and, in general terms, the view of the Committee as we went through the Bill. There is growing cross-party acknowledgement that we can no longer predict and provide—that we do indeed need to create a more responsive system. I say that because the character of our economy is changing. Economic need is increasingly dynamic, and a system that is controlled from the centre would never be sufficiently nimble to respond to that commercial need. That is now widely acknowledged. The difference is that we are going about this with purpose, energy and enthusiasm.

Let me return to staff and student representation. It is important that we see the statutory requirement that I have described merely as a baseline. There are all kinds of other good things that we can do in terms of staff and student representation, but representation on governing bodies, it was argued persuasively, should be a baseline. Lords amendment 51 extends those changes to institutions that are not college corporations, but that have been designated by legislation to receive public money for the provision of further education. It would come into effect should they decide to change their existing instruments and articles.

Lords amendments 50 and 58 give colleges the power to close themselves, which is known as dissolution. Currently, only the Secretary of State can dissolve a college. The amendments remove that power from the Secretary of State and give colleges control over their own dissolution. Colleges will also have the ability to transfer their property, rights and liabilities to another person or body for the purposes of education. These amendments and the regulations that will be laid in support of them include a number of safeguards to ensure that any dissolution decision is taken only when all those affected—staff, students and the local community —have been properly consulted, and that the process will be transparent, recognising that colleges are providers of an important public service.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who is not in his place, but who was a diligent member of the Committee, raised questions about the likelihood that colleges would fail with these new freedoms. There is no evidence to suggest that the extra freedoms will increase the risk of failure. Notwithstanding what I said about the growing understanding of the need to allow colleges to be more locally responsive, it is worrying that there are those who believe that colleges will not rise to the challenge of the new freedoms and who believe that only through central Government control can we give the necessary protection to the common interest, which I have no doubt was in the heart of the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that he is right. Colleges have shown time and again that when they are given the opportunity to be their best, unrestricted, they can be so.

I am keen to address that point in more detail in relation to the amendments. Further education is a high-performing sector, with more than 95% of colleges judged satisfactory or better. Sometimes further education has been treated as what Sir Andrew Foster described as the “neglected middle child” of education, somewhere between schools and higher education. I see it more as the prodigal son, and not just that, but the prodigal son grown up. I want further education to be a favoured part of our education system because of the difference it makes to so many lives. The important thing is to ensure that where problems occur, there are robust monitoring and support systems so that colleges are given the opportunity and help to recover. It is right that we have in place the proper protections from failure because, as I have described, public interest is involved. A great deal of taxpayers’ money is involved too. However, we should not get to the point of creating an immense infrastructure to manage the college sector.

I think that it is correct to say, albeit with the benefit of hindsight, that after incorporation and the freedoms that colleges enjoyed as a result, we responded in a heavy handed way to the occasional, rare incidents of failure. It is reasonable to conclude that the advent and actuality of the Learning and Skills Council was an overreaction to the challenges associated with the new freedoms.

[Andrew Percy]

Will the Minister explain in more detail the process for consulting the local community, if a college fails or chooses to dissolve itself? I know he has said that that will be set out in regulations, but will he give us some idea of the robustness of the consultation that he has in mind?

[Mr Hayes]

In those exceptional circumstances, I would expect the consultation to be as full as possible. By that I mean that the views of all parties with a direct interest in the college’s affairs, including the local businesses engaged with the college, local learners and the wider community—the family associated with the college—should be sought fully over a proper timetable. Whatever means are necessary should be used to access those opinions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Stuart]

I would like to take the Minister back to the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight). In East Yorkshire, the Harrier was developed with a lot of taxpayers’ money and then shipped abroad to become an American aeroplane. We rather fear that the Hawk will follow. Will the Minister reassure us, in more specific terms than he used in response to my right hon. Friend, that a college will not be so free that it can leave the country with its assets, if it suits the organisation rather than the needs of the taxpayers?

[Mr Hayes]

As I have said, where public interest is in jeopardy, the Secretary of State will retain powers under the Bill to intervene as necessary. I paid tribute to my hon. Friend a few moments ago for his patient endurance in respect of my forthcoming visit to Beverley. It was Ruskin who said,

“Endurance is nobler than strength, and patience than beauty.”

We can therefore take it that my hon. Friend is a patient endurer, more noble than strength and beauty. It is likely that the circumstance he describes would happen only rarely, but it is important that when a college wishes to transfer its property, rights and liabilities to another provider, the Secretary of State retains the kind of powers that he requested.

Lords amendments 53, 56 and 62 reinstate statutory safeguards relating to the specific governance and constitutional arrangements of voluntary sixth-form colleges that were inadvertently removed by the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act. It was the previous Government’s view that legislation should reflect the distinct constitutional position of voluntary sixth-form colleges, and they confirmed that they would look to reinstate those protections through legislation. We agree with that view, and it is what the amendments do. The new provisions cover what was afforded by previous legislation or Secretary of State directions.

As Members know, I am a keen advocate of freeing colleges from central prescription, direction and control. Such things inhibit a college’s ability to become the master of its own destiny and stifle innovation and growth in our further education sector. The changes in the Bill will enable the Government to present the best case possible to encourage the Office for National Statistics to review its decision to reclassify colleges into the public sector. However, we are not merely responding to the ONS; we began this programme of reform long before we knew about the ONS reclassification. Indeed, it was one of the first things that I set out when I became a Minister. The changes that we have made in the Bill, including the ones that we have introduced at a later stage, are entirely in the spirit of the policy direction set out in the skills strategy which I published, following extensive consultation, last autumn. Indeed, they are in the spirit of the further consultation in which we were involved over the summer, which will lead to the publication of “New Challenges, New Chances”.

The truth is that the ONS reclassification has been a further spur to us, but has not caused us to change direction. If anything, it has cemented our determination to consider every aspect of college management and every means by which we could free colleges from bureaucracy and direction. That fresh thinking has inspired the changes that have been made to the Bill.

As I have said, the changes, and our efforts to secure the private sector reclassification of colleges, have been welcomed, not least by the Association of Colleges. It considers that they will provide colleges with additional flexibility, allowing them to respond effectively to their local community and economy. I should like to place on record my gratitude to the Association of Colleges for its guidance and support, and indeed for how it has challenged us, in helping the Government develop this impressive legislation.

Lords amendments 28, 29 and 39 concern the business of colleges and inspection. You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, the report that the previous Government commissioned from Sir Andrew Foster. I have a copy of the summary here. They asked him to examine the potential of further education, and he concluded that the landscape that it faced was

“crowded with organisations charged with inspection, improvement or regulatory functions. There is unnecessary complexity and duplication of effort and further rationalisation is required.”

He also recognised, I think, that we needed to rethink how colleges were gauged, inspected and monitored. Knowing that we had some outstanding further education colleges in this country, we decided that the time was right to look afresh at inspection and regulation.

In that context, some of the comments that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), made about schools pertain to colleges too. He dealt with the issue of the inspection of schools earlier this evening, and some of the same principles apply to colleges. In my visits to colleges across the country, I have continually been impressed by the quality of teaching, the standard of learning and the innovative systems that colleges put in place to maximise learners’ potential.

Lords amendments 28 to 30 provide for greater parliamentary scrutiny of regulations exempting further education colleges from inspections, by requiring that all regulations except the first set be subject to the affirmative procedure, so that both Houses can be assured that a full debate will happen before further colleges are exempted. We decided very early on that we wanted to limit the inspection of further education colleges, as we did in the case of schools. However, it is important that that exemption is qualified in the way that I have described. The Prime Minister spoke today of coasting schools, and nor do we want to see any coasting colleges. Although there is little evidence of them, it is important that the House can debate the matter as further exemptions take root.

I turn to Lords amendments 36, 43 and 100, which put the legal framework for apprenticeships on a more sustainable and realistic footing. I need not regale the House at length with how passionately I support apprenticeships—at least, not for more than a few minutes. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have championed apprenticeships both in opposition and in government, and the Government have turned our rhetoric into action by delivering the biggest growth in apprenticeships in modern times. I have said before, and I am happy to say now, that there is more work to be done. As we make that growth sustainable, we will need to consider bureaucracy and the quality and age spread of apprenticeships. It is absolutely right that we should do that, but let us not understate the growth that we have seen—29% growth in under-19 apprenticeships and 64% growth in 19-to-24 apprenticeships over two years, and a big jump in post-25 apprenticeships.

It is important to say that the previous Government had the same aims. Many times, previous Ministers, including the previous Prime Minister, estimated the likely jump in the number of apprenticeships and the number that would be necessary to fill skills gaps. However, this Government are actually delivering. We are making more opportunities available to more people to add to their skills, which will increase their chances of getting, keeping and progressing in jobs. We know from independent research that someone who has a level 2 apprenticeship is likely to earn £70,000 more over their earning lifetime than somebody who has not, and that somebody with a level 3 apprenticeship is likely to earn more than £100,000 more. That is roughly equivalent to a degree.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the amazing increase in apprenticeships that he has outlined. I met my local college, Stourbridge college, and other colleges last week, and they reported a huge increase in apprenticeships over the past six months. Is he aware of another route into apprenticeships, which emerged during a meeting that I had the previous week with Stourbridge jobcentre? It reported that among 18 to 24-year-olds a route in was via two-week work experience placements. In many cases, they were being converted into apprenticeships.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. It is very interesting to hear of the extensive commitment that the Minister has personally to apprenticeships, and indeed to hear the point that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) has made, but we are discussing Lords amendments. Although Lords amendment 36 is about securing the provision of apprenticeships in certain regulations, the debate is going a little wide of that. Perhaps the Minister could relate his comments to the amendments.

[Mr Hayes]

I was not going to be encouraged to speak lyrically about work experience, although I could, but I hear and value what my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) says.

Amendments 36, 43 and 100 deal specifically with the so-called apprenticeship offer. As I said, apprenticeships play a key role in promoting growth and prosperity in British business and give renewed hope and purpose to our young people, who are so affected by the present climate. Through the Bill, we are redefining the apprenticeship offer. We are moving away from what I regard as an unrealistic guarantee that sought to require the Government to tell employers whom they should and should not employ. The previous Government took the view that the House could place a duty on the chief executive of skills funding to fund apprenticeships for anyone who wanted them. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) intervenes from a sedentary position, but he knows that in practice, the previous offer was undeliverable. There was much discussion of this matter in the other place. I pay tribute in particular to Lord Layard, who made this case forcefully and with whom I have enjoyed many discussions. He also writes persuasively about happiness —I read a recent essay from him on that subject. Happiness is all of our aims, is it not, individually and communally?

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hayes]

Is this about happiness?

[Mr Stuart]

I am always focused on happiness. I thought I could increase the Minister’s sense of contentment if I attempted to correct him. Under the previous situation, there was an obligation not to fund an apprenticeship for anyone who wanted it but to provide one, outwith any ability necessarily to ensure that an employer came forward. That is why the Minister and the Government were right to make that alteration, not withstanding the complaints of Opposition Members.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman got his point on the record, but we are not debating the previous Government’s record or apprenticeships generally; we are debating amendments on quite narrow points in the Bill. I know the Minister is really eager to come back to that.

[Mr Hayes]

As you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are debating the character of the apprenticeship offer. This Government take the view that we need further to refine the legal framework for apprenticeships. The debate on this subject in the other place was on the character of that duty. Lords amendment 36 places a new duty on the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency to make reasonable efforts to secure employer involvement in apprenticeships. That is so important because we have changed assumptions of the nature of apprenticeships. We take the view that apprenticeships should intrinsically involve employment—making an offer separate from employment seemed nonsensical.

I make that point because until relatively recently, some apprenticeships—programme-led apprenticeships, for example—were not tied to employment in quite the same way. Lords amendment 36 was the outcome of a great deal of hard work and good will, as I have described. The overtures made to me by Lords Layard, Wakeham, Willis and Sutherland persuaded the Government and my noble Friends to devise an amendment that satisfies the wishes of those who want to place a clear duty in the Bill, but not one that the Government think is undeliverable.

Although I know some feel that I have summarised the Lords amendments all too briefly, those amendments put apprenticeships, the freedoms about which I have spoken, the changed inspection regime, the different role for the Government, the new emphasis on skills, and the mantra—I decidedly and deliberately put it that clearly—of freedom, flexibility, innovation and dynamism, at the very heart of this legislation. I think they improve the Bill significantly and I look forward to hearing whether the Opposition think so too.

[Stephen Twigg]

It is always a great pleasure to speak opposite the Minister in such important debates. This is my first opportunity to do so from the Opposition Front Bench. The Minister reminded us that my noble Friend Lord Layard has written about happiness, about which he is an international expert, alongside my constituent Ken Dodd, who has been writing and singing about such matters for a very long time.

The Opposition have serious wider concerns about the Bill, some of which, including on schools, were addressed in the debate on the previous group of amendments. Other concerns, including those on information, advice, guidance and the careers service, are outside the scope of today’s debate. I should like to focus on inspection, governance and apprenticeships. I echo many of the things the Minister said, and in particular his positive comments on the role of the Association of Colleges, and I look forward to attending its conference in Birmingham later this week.

I also echo what the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said about the importance of partnerships between further education colleges and the wider education system, including schools. In the debate on the previous group, we discussed the importance of co-operation and collaboration alongside autonomy and competition. We often discuss school-to-school and college-to-college co-operation and collaboration, but there is great scope for further co-operation and collaboration between schools and the further education sector.

Let me address the inspection of further education institutions. All hon. Members are seeking to strike a balance between autonomy and inspection—this is a similar debate to the one on schools, as the Minister said. Lords amendments 28 and 29 have much the same effect as Lords amendments 26 and 27. The former relate to further education institutions and the latter to schools.

The Opposition have a number of concerns that echo those we raised about schools, although they are not exactly the same. I should like briefly to put some of them on the record; they have been raised in previous stages both in this House and in the other place. We are concerned that exempting certain further education colleges from inspection will undermine the campaign for high standards in those institutions, and in particular we fear that the Government’s approach is simply to rely on a market effect, which could let down, for example, students who are currently studying. Their institution could struggle and yet nothing will be done, and there is no trigger for them to make an inspection happen. It is possible—we debated this with respect to schools—for a further education institution that at one time was high performing to slip for some reason. The lack of an inspection regime in such a situation could be a major challenge.

The new Ofsted chief inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, was quoted in the previous debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). The chief executive’s point was about schools, but it applies to further education colleges as well—the principle is much the same. The conditions that would render a further education institution exempt from inspection are not clear. If the Minister has the opportunity, with the leave of the House later, I should like him to clarify the Government’s thinking on when a further education college will be deemed exempt.

I understand that that thinking will be set out in regulations, but Lords amendments 28 and 29 mean that all regulations apart from the first set made under section (5) of the Education Act 2005 must be subject to the affirmative procedure. There is no requirement for an affirmative resolution the very first time the exemption criteria are outlined. I invite the Minister to explain his reasoning for that and to assure us that the measure is not simply being rushed through because of Ofsted’s budget situation. Given the seriousness of the step that is being taken, and the lack of public consultation on it, the Opposition believe that there should be an affirmative resolution the first time as well as on subsequent occasions, and have tabled an amendment to that effect.

The Minister referred to issues of governance. As Lord Hill acknowledged on Report in the Lords, Labour peers, led by my noble Friend from the Labour Front Bench, Baroness Jones, made important arguments on this issue. Labour Front Benchers in the other place tabled an amendment to reinstate the rights of students and staff to be represented on further education colleges’ governing bodies. As the Minister outlined, the Government brought forward an amendment on Third Reading in the other place to guarantee governing body places for staff and students. Lord Hill said:

“It may help if I inform noble Lords of discussions between the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my honourable friend, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning”—

the Minister—on her amendment to

“retain requirements for staff and student governors…The Government have brought forward these changes to support our case for the private sector classification for colleges, in accordance with the policy of successive Governments. It was not our intention to encourage colleges to remove staff or student governors from college governance arrangements. I know that colleges greatly value the contribution that those governors make.

Having listened to the arguments that were put to him by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones…my honourable friend”—

the Minister—

“and I have spoken further. We have decided that the Government will return at Third Reading with their own amendment, which will give effect to what the noble Baroness's amendment seeks to achieve.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 2011; Vol. 731, c. 1135.]

Let me thank the Minister for his generous tribute to my noble Friend and also echo her thanks and appreciation to him and his colleagues in the Department for this important change to the legislation. Participation in the governance of FE colleges is an important part of student citizenship, as well as contributing to good governance. I would like also to put on the record our appreciation to the National Union of Students for its excellent work on ensuring that the relevant amendments were agreed.

Nobody in this House could doubt the Minister’s personal commitment to apprenticeships. We welcome the amendments that impose a duty on the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency to make reasonable efforts to secure employers’ participation in apprenticeship training for all young people in the specified groups covered by the redefined offer—that is, 16 to 18-year-olds and 19 to 24-year-olds with a disability or learning difficulty assessment, as well as young care leavers. Without those amendments, the Bill would have simply taken opportunities away from our young people. The Minister mentioned the assiduity of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) in Committee, where he said that the clause in question represented a wholesale degrading in the value the Government place on apprenticeships; that it is a retrospective step, stopping the duty to create apprenticeships for suitably qualified people; and that instead of creating jobs, transferring skills to young people, and boosting the economy, this clause does the exact opposite.

Lords amendment 36 is a significant improvement, but we believe that there is scope to go further. As the Minister has set out, under the legislation introduced by the previous Labour Government, the chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency had a duty to secure an apprenticeship place for every suitably qualified person within certain specified categories. The previous Labour Government’s policy was that the agency was under a duty to find an apprenticeship for every qualified young person who wanted one. They had to be given two choices about the sector that they wished to enter. That was removed in the original draft of the Bill, but as the Minister has said, a cross-party group of peers, led my noble Friend Lord Layard, achieved an important Government concession that required the agency to make reasonable efforts to involve employers in apprenticeship training, which has led to Lords amendment 36, which we welcome.

The amendment was a cross-party amendment, tabled in the names of Lord Layard, Lord Wakeham, Lord Willis of Knaresborough and Lord Sutherland. Lord Layard said in the other place:

“If you look at the situation in our country, it is clear that academic young people are offered a clear route to a skill and a useful role in society. They can see where they are going. That is not the case for less academic young people. There is no clear route that they can see they are entitled to go down. The result is low levels of skills and a degree of alienation…If you look at this from a young person’s point of view, we are raising the education participation age. It is quite difficult to see how we are going to be able to do that in a way that is acceptable to young people unless these apprenticeship places are available to them. We need legislation that states the main aims of our education system. For that 16 to 19 year-old group, we have a lacuna. We cannot fill it by ministerial statements and assurances, as Ministers come and go. We expect the basic structure of our educational system to be reflected in the laws of the country.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 September 2011; Vol. 731, c. GC274.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Twigg]

I might be told off by Madam Deputy Speaker, but let me say that the quality of the education and training elements of the apprenticeship are vital. What we must not do, however, is allow apprenticeships to become a form of exploitation. A balance has to be struck. Clearly, an apprenticeship should be first and foremost about quality education and training, but with a decent amount of pay, too, for those who are apprentices.

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. These are very important issues. I do not believe that any Opposition Member doubts the personal commitment of the Minister, particularly on apprenticeships. We have concerns that we have expressed previously about the impact of other changes—the abolition of the education maintenance allowance and the trebling of tuition fees—and we would be very concerned if there was any weakening of the apprenticeship brand. Let us perhaps forge a cross-party national consensus to the effect that we want apprenticeships to increase in number, but more importantly we want to see them as a high-quality gold standard for those young people who follow a vocational route of education.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) raised a number of points, which I shall try to address in my closing remarks. I would like to speak first to amendment (a) to Lords Amendment 29, under which the first as well as any subsequent regulations exempting certain providers from Ofsted inspection in particular circumstances would be subject to the affirmative procedure. The hon. Gentleman asked me particularly to address those matters.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), has already spoken about a related amendment to the schools inspection exemption. The same intentions lay behind the exemption for further education providers and our plan, in essence, is to exempt outstanding colleges. I will listen, however, to the points raised. I do not have a dogmatic view on this matter, and as we move to a lighter-touch inspection regime, it is important to do so with appropriate caution.

I would like to deal with one particular concern. Where students feel that an outstanding institution is not maintaining high standards, Ofsted will take very seriously any comments students might make as part of the risk assessment, which could trigger an inspection. My hon. Friend the Minister spoke about the risk assessment process, and it is important that it is tied closely to the view of students about the quality of teaching and learning in an institution.

I spoke to the National Union of Students today about representation on college governing bodies, which we discussed when we dealt with the amendments to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby also referred. As I described earlier, we view such representation as a baseline. Representation on governing bodies does not provide the whole answer for learner or staff engagement. Learners and staff should be engaged at a policy level in plotting the strategic direction of a college. As we move to a more freed-up system, so learner choice and learner judgment will play an increasingly critical role in how colleges evolve. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the process. We are moving ahead boldly, but cautiously. At this juncture, it is probably best for me to leave that there.

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 36 would require the chief executive of skills funding to make “best” efforts rather than “reasonable” efforts in respect of apprenticeships. Of course I understand the intention to strengthen the focus on the delivery of this important objective. It is crucial to maintain and, indeed, improve the quality of apprenticeships while we grow their number. When something grows rapidly, it obviously creates a pressure on quality. Inevitably, the momentum will lead to more employers and more providers becoming involved and more individuals becoming apprentices—including people who might not have done so if the system was smaller. I believe that places an extra responsibility on us to ensure that the integrity of the brand is retained by an appropriate emphasis on quality, and as I said on the Floor of the House a few days ago in a different debate on a different subject, we will do that. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby is right to say that this amendment, and his argument about it, draws attention to the issue of quality. The debate in the other place and the discussions to which he referred—I pay tribute once again to Lord Layard and others—helped us to concentrate our thinking on maintaining and improving the quality of the apprenticeships offered.

[Mr Graham Stuart]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the number of apprenticeships going on to level 3 is a big indicator of quality and that we want more apprentices getting to level 2 to go on to level 3? Has he given any more thought to providing a more flexible level 3 offer for 16 and 17-year-olds who often find that, if they want to go on to level 3 after completing level 2, the funding gets cut in the current system?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby spoke a little about the age spread of apprenticeships in arguing for his amendment. Although he did not deal particularly with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) just raised, this is not the first time that my hon. Friend has mentioned it. It is important to devise a system that maximises the prospect of progression, in the way that he describes.

The good news is that the biggest proportion of growth in the numbers that were drawn to the House’s attention a week or so ago was in level 3 apprenticeships. I think that that rather frustrated the critics who had assumed that the biggest proportionate growth would be at level 2. In proportional terms, the number of level 3 apprenticeships has grown at the fastest rate over the last year. I can also inform my hon. Friend of a fact that has not been in the public domain until now: indications suggest that the length of apprenticeships among those aged over 25 is increasing. That is also rather counter-intuitive for those who listen to the critics from the bourgeois left, the glitterati and chatterati who look down their noses at practical learning in a way in which you and I do not, Mr Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend was, however, right to draw our attention to other measures that we might take in respect of progression. I know that one of his suggestions is that we should look at ways of helping people to undertake parts of a level in which they were otherwise already competent. There may be ways in which we can adopt a more modular approach to progression. I do not intend to discuss that at length now, because it is not entirely pertinent to the amendment, but it is relevant to what has been said by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby, who also made a point about the age spread of apprenticeships.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In other regions of the United Kingdom, such as Northern Ireland, education, including further education, is devolved. In Northern Ireland it is possible to obtain gold-plated apprenticeships that can accompany the education and training that are also needed. Have the Government considered similar action to help apprentices to secure better final qualifications?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman has made a useful comment. The way in which apprenticeships are perceived, and the experience of the apprentices themselves, are critical to whether apprentices are likely to make progress. Those who have had a good experience of the early stages of apprenticeship may well progress to a higher level, perhaps in the companies that have taken them on, which will be good for both the business and the individual.

Paragraphs 30 and 31 of Lord Leitch’s report, which was commissioned by the last Government, state:

“Improving the skills of young people, while essential, cannot be the sole solution to achieving world class skills. Improvements in attainment of young people can only deliver a small part of what is necessary because they comprise a small proportion of the overall workforce. Demographic change means that there will be smaller numbers of young people flowing into the workforce towards 2020.

More than 70 per cent of the 2020 working age population are already over the age of 16.”

Lord Leitch concluded that unless we upskill and reskill the existing work force, we will never catch up with our competitors.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby is right to say that we should not think in terms of two alternatives. This is not about providing a valued and valuable route to practical learning through apprenticeships for younger people but not doing so for people in their 20s or 30s who want to upskill or reskill, such as the level 3 apprentices whom I met recently at Jaguar Land Rover in Halewood, near Liverpool, not a million miles from the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Both those things can be achieved through an apprenticeship offer of the right kind.

[Stephen Twigg]

I entirely agree that we are not talking about two alternatives, but does the Minister share my concern about the fact that, according to the IPPR report, there is a large growth in the number of apprenticeships for those over 25, a pretty large growth in the number for those aged 19 to 24, but a much smaller growth in the number for 16-to-18-year-olds?

[Mr Hayes]

I think that we need to calibrate the system to ensure that there is a good age spread. I probably should have emphasised to an even greater degree—you know what I am for understatement, Mr Deputy Speaker—the need to make growth sustainable. If it is to be sustainable, it will be necessary to address issues such as those that have been raised tonight. By “sustainable growth”, I mean growth that offers older learners the opportunities to upskill and progress that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness—opportunities to create a vocational pathway of the quality that we both seek, the “gold standard” for apprenticeships. I had used that term myself, and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby may have read it, imbibed it subliminally and repeated it. I know that he would normally have attributed it; perhaps it was by accident that he did not.

We also need to be constantly vigilant about the quality of the offer. Let me set out some of the things we are doing in that respect. I have made it very clear to the National Apprenticeship Service that poor provision should be eliminated. We have to be very tough on any provision reported to us that we investigate and find not to be of sufficient quality.

[Neil Carmichael]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one key measure of the success of apprenticeships—this certainly applies to levels 2 and 3, and is consistent with his views about economic growth, sustainability and so on—is what happens in manufacturing and engineering? Does he agree that all the measures that we should be thinking of in terms of developing that sector should be implemented?

[Mr Hayes]

Another bit of good news when we saw the figures from the statistical release was the substantial growth in manufacturing and engineering apprenticeships; the number of starts was 47,000, which was an increase of 20% on the 2009-10 figure. So we had very strong growth in the very apprenticeships that my hon. Friend rightly identifies as crucial to our future prospects. Interestingly, the figures clearly show that there is growth across the system. Again rather counter-intuitively from the perspective of the critics, there has been growth in sectors where employment more generally has either slowed or declined. So apprenticeships seem to be bucking the trend in areas such as manufacturing and engineering. Even in construction, where there has been a very sharp decline in employment, apprenticeship numbers have held up. That suggests that businesses are investing in training and in their future, and that apprenticeships are succeeding. This is a flagship policy, devised in opposition and delivered in government.

[Bob Stewart]

Has the Minister considered—I am sure that he has—the thought that a great number of high-quality individuals have had considerable technical training in the armed forces? Could they come in at level 2, with this possibly leading on to level 3? Is that part of the system he envisages?

[Mr Hayes]

This weekend, I was looking at a submission that suggested that we might ask the National Apprenticeship Service to look specifically at people who have left the armed forces. I am particularly concerned about those who have left the armed forces with a disability. One of the challenges that the previous Government faced and that we face too is in ensuring that the apprenticeship system is accessible to as many people as possible, and I do not think we do well enough by disabled potential apprentices. I asked, at the very early stages of my distinguished ministerial career, for the NAS to examine that area closely, but I want it to re-examine it. I particularly want the NAS to examine what we can do for disabled ex-servicemen.

[Bob Stewart]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I happily give way to my hon. Friend, who is a great expert on these things.

[Bob Stewart]

I hope that the Minister will forgive me, because he has almost made the point I was going to make, which is that we could involve disabled ex-servicemen as part of this system. That would be a superb way of helping them to get into decent employment in civilian life.

[Mr Hayes]

I am glad that I anticipated my hon. Friend’s point. Foresight is not essential for a Minister, but it is a great advantage, particularly when it can be displayed on the Floor of the House of Commons.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) mentioned growth and others have talked about progression, so in dealing with the remark made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby about happiness, I wish to draw his attention to Yeats. I know that the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), the shadow Minister sitting next to him, is a fan of Yeats. Lord Layard did such good work on this particular amendment, so I shall cite the following from Yeats:

“Happiness is neither virtue nor pleasure nor this thing nor that but simply growth, We are happy when we are growing.”

When apprenticeships are growing, I am particularly happy because it is testament to the success of our policies.

[Kevin Brennan]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

We are going to hear some more Yeats from the hon. Gentleman and I am happy to give way to him.

[Kevin Brennan]

He also said:

“No likely end could bring them loss

Or leave them happier than before.”

We look forward to the Minister’s end this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hayes]

Perhaps we will see the end of this speech, but not the end of my career, not the end of this Government and not the end of my time here, which I see stretching a great long distance into the future.

Let me return to the points made by the shadow Secretary of State for Education in respect of the Lords amendment and particularly the apprenticeship offer. He implored us to go further. Indeed, his amendment to the Lords amendment asks us to do so. He asks us to strengthen the offer, having acknowledged with typical generosity, the progress that we have made in this respect. I will again take seriously his remarks about how we market this. An important part of what we do with apprenticeships is selling the product. I have made it clear to the National Apprenticeship Service that its job is as a marketing and sales organisation. Its job is to get more companies to understand the value of apprenticeships, more individuals to understand the opportunities that they provide to them personally and more providers to rise to the challenge and to ensure that they are in the best place possible to deliver apprenticeships. As a result of his overtures, rather than accepting the amendment to the Lords amendment—he would hardly expect me to do that—I will look again at how we can market the renewed offer in the most effective way possible.

[Neil Carmichael]

On marketing apprenticeship schemes, does my hon. Friend agree that the key area that we should focus on is small and medium-sized enterprises, because they need to grasp the opportunities that apprenticeships can bring them and the apprentices?

[Mr Hayes]

Yes. In opposition, of course, it was our policy to offer a financial incentive to support SMEs, which we felt would have a real and perceived risk associated with taking on apprentices, through the means of some kind of payment. We were unable to do that because of the financial constraints that affect the whole Government, but we can make more progress in respect of bureaucracy. We need to make the system accessible, straightforward and simple. We need to get rid of the bureaucracy that has sometimes inhibited small businesses from engaging in the apprenticeship programme. Yes, we will go further, and spurred on by my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm, I will make further announcements on reductions in bureaucracy, specifically for SMEs. He is right that their engagement in apprenticeships is critical, not least because if we are to spread apprenticeships and seed them into every community, village and town, we cannot simply rely on the excellent apprenticeship schemes of major businesses, such as BT, BAM, BAE, the Royal Navy, Ford Motor Company, EDF, the Royal Air Force, Sellafield, Bentley Motors, Jaguar Land Rover, GE Aerospace, Caterpillar, Honda and others. We need to have apprenticeships in smaller businesses and micro-businesses, too, such as those in my constituency—in the small villages and towns, where if we were to ask young people in particular to get an apprenticeship, they could only do so locally, because of travel and accessibility issues.

[Steve Rotheram]

The Minister has just spoken about micro-businesses. MPs are almost micro-businesses. I would like to know how many MPs have put their money where their mouths are and taken on apprentices. I am one of them. Other Government and Opposition Members have taken on apprentices, but a vast number of MPs have not done so. If we all took on just one apprentice, we could create 650 apprentices in the House.

[Mr Hayes]

I have written to colleagues to that effect. I make that plea once again. The hon. Gentleman is right to offer that clarion call to Members of Parliament to take on apprentices. I have one in my office. I hope that the shadow Secretary of State is thinking about taking on an apprentice. I know that he will do so speedily, following the words that he has heard from the Dispatch Box today.

The National Apprenticeship Service is already actively promoting apprenticeships with employers and ensuring that apprenticeships are highly prized by businesses and apprentices. It provides an online vacancy matching service for employers and prospective apprentices. It already has a dedicated employer-facing field force to recruit new employers in the way that I have described.

--- Later in debate ---

20:46

Division 396

Ayes: 191

---

Labour: 189
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 285

---

Conservative: 235
Liberal Democrat: 44
Democratic Unionist Party: 4

Lords amendment 36 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived..