Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 103, in clause 10, page 9, line 2, leave out ‘2002' and insert ‘1996'.

The amendment is purely a technical one to correct an error in the drafting of clause 10, for which I  apologise to the Committee. Subsection (4) states that approval of non-maintained special schools is given under the Education Act 2002. That is not the case. Non-maintained special schools are approved under section 342 of the Education Act 1996, and the amendment corrects the date. Subsection (4) makes provision for circumstances in which a new foundation special school is to be regarded as replacing a non-maintained special school comparable to that in subsection (3) for independent schools. I hope that the Committee will agree that the amendment is helpful in clarifying and tidying up the drafting, and willsupport it.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 350, in clause 10, page 9, line 16, at end insert—

‘(6A) Where the proposals relate to a new foundation, voluntary or foundation special school providing education suitable only to the requirements of persons above compulsory age, the persons to be consulted under subsection (6) must include all colleges of further education providing education for 16-19 year olds in the relevant area.'.

Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 351, in clause 10, page 9, line 23, at end insert—

‘(10) In determining any proposal under this section the authority or proposers (as the case may be) must have regard to the impact of any proposed new school on existing provision in schools or colleges of further education.'.

No. 352, in clause 19, page 14, line 28, at end add—

‘(7) The regulations must require any local education authority publishing proposals on the establishment of educational provision suitable to the requirements of pupils over compulsory school age to consult all colleges of further education providing education for 16-19 year olds in the relevant area.

(8) In assessing a proposal under this section the authority or adjudicator must take account of the impact of the proposal on existing provision.'.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

The amendments are probing amendments to test out who should be consulted and the weight that should be given to their views. Amendment No. 350 seeks to provide that colleges of further education should be consulted by a local education authority when it seeks to establish any new educational institution catering for post-16 education. Amendment No. 251 would go further, requiring the LEA to consider the impact on FE colleges of any new school opening in an area.

Colleges are the largest provider of 16-to-19 provision. Almost twice as many students go to FE colleges as attend school sixth forms. They are also much more likely to provide for the most disadvantaged students. It is notable that 15 per cent. of learners in colleges are from ethnic minorities, compared with 8 per cent. of the general population. Indeed, 64 per cent. of those in receipt of educational maintenance allowances study in FE or other colleges.

FE colleges have a high customer satisfaction rate. They offer high-quality courses in a wide range of subjects. According to a survey by the Association of Colleges, 84 per cent. of the British public believe that their local college is as important to business as any  other factor. The Bill’s proposal to allow local authorities to propose new sixth-form schools seems to contradict the FE White Paper, which contains a presumption that there should be sixth-form colleges rather than sixth-form schools. I should be interested to hear from the Minister how that apparent contradiction will be resolved.

The Bill provides for local authorities to propose new sixth-form schools, but not to fund them—that would be for the Learning and Skills Council to do—and it says that the learning and skills council for an area should be consulted about the setting up of new sixth-form schools. However, colleges feel that that body is not best placed to act on their behalf. I suspect that there are many reasons for that, but colleges are independent bodies, not subsidiaries of the learning and skills council.

Colleges are concerned that smaller sixth-form schools tend to have inferior results, quality of teaching and choice of subject and that, as theright hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich(Mr. Raynsford) pointed out on Second Reading, they are more expensive because of the funding gap between themselves and FE colleges.

We are not opposed to the setting up of new sixth-form schools; they might be the best and safest environment for some young people. In that case, it is important that any new sixth-form school be set up in collaboration with others in an area to ensure that choice and quality are not affected. Often, small schools are unable to provide as much choice as might be required.

David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)

Does the hon. Lady not accept that there is a direct relationship between achievement and the points score at A-level and the size of the sixth form? The smallest sixth forms have the lowest achievement in terms of A-level point score; the largest have the highest. Each band of size of sixth form increases progressively towards the higher end of the achievement level.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman makes the point that I was about to make; that is very much the case. That is why colleges are very concerned about a presumption in the Bill towards setting up smaller sixth forms, which are more expensive to provide and which may yield lower-quality results. If there are occasions when sixth form schools should be set up because it is appropriate for the locality, it must be done in collaboration with others to ensure that all those opportunities for quality, choice and teaching are provided for.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

The case made by the hon. Lady in support of her amendment is one that I want to explore. This is an important aspect of the Bill that thus far we have not had a chance to discuss, but which the amendment focuses on rather clearly. The lead amendment has some merit. It would include

“all colleges of further education providing education for16-19 year olds in the relevant area”

in the consultation process under subsection (6). The other amendments follow in similar vein. I understand  the hon. Lady’s proper attention to the necessary relationship between schools and FE institutions in the locality and her consequent desire to involve FE in the consultation process. However, she has illuminated yet another difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

It was Harold Macmillan who said:

“As usual the Liberals offer a mixture of sound and original ideas. Unfortunately none of the sound ideas is original and none of the original ideas is sound.”

That is perhaps an overstatement of their virtues. It was very true today.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

Get on with it!

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I never know whether the hon. Lady is more churlish than childish or more childish than churlish. She is certainly both. Nevertheless, shemade an important point about whether we see FE’s continuing role as duplicating the role that is performed in sixth form colleges and schools or whether, like Sir Andrew Foster, we believe that one of the problems that faces FE is the fact that because it does a large number of things, its purpose is insufficiently defined.

Sir Andrew Foster described in his report last year how FE’s identity is blurred by the fact that it is seen as doing different things by different people. He stated that teachers and learners in FE often have a blurred sense of the college’s purpose and that there may be some displacement of resource and attention because FE lacks focus.

There is a case to be made for FE focusing much more heavily on vocational skills and on upskilling and re-skilling the work force. There is a parallel but equally powerful case for FE picking up the whole “Skills for Life” agenda, in the way the Government elucidated after the Budget, in the new entitlements for people up to the age of 25, and doing less work that could be as usefully done elsewhere. I do not make a definitive judgment on that because I do not have a definitive view on it, but it certainly needs to be explored. It has direct relevance to this part of the Bill.

Annette Brooke (Children & the Family, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain his vision of what students might study if they are based at a school? Would that include only A-levels at school, and vocational studies at college? Does he not see that a particular student, based primarily at one institution, might study for a range of diplomas being developed by the Government?

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

That is precisely the argument that we have been having about the breadth of opportunity available to young people, post-14 and post-16, and the need not only to review the curriculum, which is what the Government have done through the diplomas, but—in my judgment—to look more closely at the relationship between schools and FE institutions.

I have no prejudices about the idea of schools and FE institutions jointly designing, managing and even funding courses so that skills can be shared. Schools have a problem of providing sufficient resources and  skills in order to offer the breadth of provision within their own compass that students might demand. Even schools, such as Gleed girls school in my constituency, that have gained vocational specialism have that problem. To do that, they need either to collaborate with other schools or to have a much closer working relationship with other institutions, such as colleges.

Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

Order. I remind the Committee of two things: first, the Chair is located at this end of the Room, and, secondly, comments are meant to be directed towards it.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I am sorry, Mr. Cook. I shall follow your advice with my usual diligence.

We learn from the comments of the hon. Member for Brent, East that the purpose of the amendment is to discourage or inhibit the expansion of schools offering sixth-form provision because she discerns that that might be unhelpful to FE. As I said, my case is not prejudiced, but hypothetical. One might say that there is a direct counter-argument that it might be rather helpful to FE to refocus its energies away from what could be done through collaborative arrangements, but essentially around school education.

As I said, that is not a prejudiced or partisan matter, but it is one that needs to be debated in the context of the Bill and the amendments. If the hon. Lady’s vision, in which FE would continue much as it is now, is to be realised, we would be ignoring Sir Andrew Foster’s conclusions. I suspect that my view and that of the Minister are more similar to each other than either is to that of the Liberal Democrats.

Annette Brooke (Children & the Family, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; Mid Dorset & North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

Will the hon. Gentleman reiterate that he thinks that there is the possibility of collaboration so that an individual pupil might study academic and vocational subjects—in other words, a mix, which is the direction in which we are moving 14-to-19 provision? Does he not think therefore that FE institutions need to be consulted to see where they would fit into that collaboration?

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

Yes, I think that that is one of the purposes of the provision, which is why I talkedabout collaboration, jointly designed, managed and implemented courses, and the possibility of joint institutions. For example, I have a school in my constituency—I shall not go into too much detail—that is hoping to develop a centre working with other schools to take advantage of the vocational specialism that it has acquired and to deliver precisely the range of products described by the hon. Lady.

Of course I am in favour of FE institutions and schools working together more closely so that they can offer the mix of which the hon. Lady is in favour. However, I am not sure that that kind of collaborative model can be squared with the view that began to emerge from those on the Liberal Front Bench—I accept that it was only a short speech on a particular amendment—which seemed to be rather hostile to the idea of encouraging school sixth forms and that model.

Unless we are prepared to rethink more radically how we provide post-16 education, both academic and  vocational, we will not overcome the problems identified by Sir Andrew Foster, to which I draw the Committee’s attention. He argued that FE

“lacks a clearly recognised and shared core purpose.”

I think that he is right. FE colleges should develop specialisms in which they can excel. That happens increasingly in schools and has long happened in higher education. Of course higher education institutions provide a range of courses, but we all know that some have specialisms in which they have particular expertise and focus, and for which they have a reputation. Why should not that situation be reflected in colleges?

Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)

I was not going to speak in this debate, but I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether, as he is quoting Sir Andrew Foster so favourably, he supports the Government’s White Paper, “Raising Skills and Improving Life Chances,” which implements 74 of the 80 Foster recommendations. We are implementing the other six in a different way. He cannot quote Foster only in support of FE colleges, but he can support the White Paper.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

Yes, the Government have got some of this right. I would be the first to acknowledge that the Under-Secretary’s personal commitment to the matter is undoubted. I know that he has given considerable attention to the Foster report, but the Government start from a difficult position on skills, because we have a skills crisis. No Government want to admit that, but it is clear from the interim Leach report—we expect the final report this summer to say nothing different—that the task is immense.

One of the dilemmas at the heart of the matter is the fact that the Government’s core skills entitlement for those up to the age of 25 might well further skew the resources and attention of FE away from upskilling and re-skilling the existing work force towards a second chance for those up to 25. I put that point to the Under-Secretary as he has challenged me on the matter.

One understands entirely why the Government want to give the entitlement, and I do not wish to question their intention or ignore the necessity of dealing with core skills, which are vital to the life chances of individuals and to national competitiveness. However, I worry about the impact that the policy might have on FE, which is already telling us that the Skills for Life campaign concentrates resources in a way that makes it even harder to get at the hardest to get at groups—older people, more disadvantaged people, existing workers or people outside the work force. That is my judgment, and that of some FE principals to whom I have spoken. I raise that caveat to my general words of praise of the Government and the Under-Secretary.

As I have said, we should be even more creative and imaginative in reconstructing the provision of skills training. We must be radical in breaking down the barriers between schools, colleges and employers, and we must look more closely at how courses are designed and how to implement vocational education. We must think much more laterally about such matters.

In meeting the parity of esteem challenge, we can borrow from accreditation practice in industry. We can draw on the best talents available in each sector and not be hidebound by the conventional structural barriers that can lead us to replicate and contradict some of what is done in vocational education.

I am not ignoring the points that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole made about the need to consult FE and the important debate to be had about the role of school sixth forms and sixth-form colleges. I do not intend just to be adversarial, but I am just not sure that I agree with her about what FE colleges should be doing.

The hon. Lady makes an important point in that my argument is most applicable in places where it iseasy in practice to access the kind of mixed provision through collaboration that she advocates. That kind of provision is probably more straightforward to access if one lives in a conurbation or other area in which it is easier to get about than it might be in a rural area in which travel distances and the simple act of getting to the places where learning and resources are located make things more difficult. In rural areas, it is harder to construct a model around what I said in relation to Sir Andrew Foster. There, travel issues are a profound problem, particularly for younger learners. We shall say more about that when we consider transportation in the later parts of the Bill. The viability of post-16 provision because of numbers in sparsely populated areas—another matter that relates to the hon. Lady’s comments—also needs to be factored into our considerations, but perhaps that is a debate for another time.

It is right that we take full account of the important role of colleges, and that we understand the significance of vocational education in the mix of education that is to be provided, and which is affected by the Bill. It is right, too, that we make a judgment about how and from where we want that educationto be provided. However, I am not instinctively sympathetic to the amendments and nothing that I have heard has made me more so, but I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response to them.

Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)

Perhaps it would be helpful to the Committee if I were to register the fact that I am not a mind reader. Anybody who wants to catch my eye ought to stand erect. Greg Mulholland.

Greg Mulholland (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education & Skills; Leeds North West, Liberal Democrat)

Thank you, Mr. Cook. I hope that that was erect enough.

I hope that the Minister will agree that this is an important point, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings acknowledged that it is important to have the discussion. The Liberal Democrats agree that we need to focus on post-16 education and to improve what is on offer. That is why we have been consistently supportive of the Tomlinson agenda. I was a little concerned about the way in which the comments of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings came across. He appeared not to acknowledge or even value the contribution of the FE sector and colleges to  post-16 education. We are very aware of that on these Benches, and support it and I hope that the Government will echo my comments. Indeed, a recent Government survey of 27,000 businesses showed that 95 per cent. of employers approved of the trainingthat they receive from colleges. Together with the facts that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East set out, and despite the 10 per cent. funding gap that still exists between FE colleges and school sixth forms and the fact that there is no timetable or plan as to how that will be changed—

Meg Hillier (Hackney South & Shoreditch, Labour)

It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments about support for vocational education. How does he square that with his party’s opposition to a Bill that proposes 14 post-14 vocational diplomas?

Greg Mulholland (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education & Skills; Leeds North West, Liberal Democrat)

As the hon. Lady well knows, that is not why we opposed that Bill. The point is collaboration. The word has been used in the Committee, but we are still not convinced that the necessary collaboration is occurring at local level to analyse the effect of the Bill on local education as a whole. It is precisely because of the need to improve post-16 education—a need that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings touched upon—that we support the extension to vocational education that the Government have proposed. The point of our amendment, however, is that post-16 education will be threatened unless its planning and implementation is examined as a whole at local level, along with the effects on different institutions.

All members of the Committee would agree that parents want good local education from the ages of five to 18 and 19. My party is certain that in proposing a new school, subject to the Secretary of State’s veto, local authorities will continue to work with the local FE sector, but I ask the Minister to assure us that that will be the case. The amendment acknowledges and reinforces the commitment of local authorities to the strategic planning of education, because we believe that that has been abandoned by both the Government and the Opposition.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

Just to be clear, I think that the hon. Gentleman is right: there is an immense amount of good work being done in FE colleges both by managers and teachers, and in no way do I underestimate that. My point was that we expect too much of FE. If we are not clear about what we want from FE it is a bit rich when we complain about what it provides. It does a good job and we need to give more strategic direction, of the kind that the hon. Gentleman described, about what we want from the sector. We need local agreement and national clarity of purpose.

Greg Mulholland (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education & Skills; Leeds North West, Liberal Democrat)

I am pleased to hear that acknowledgment, and I challenge the Minister to show that the Government have the same commitment. From their policy, it does not appear to our party that they have the interests of colleges uppermost. In  general, we are not convinced that there is sufficient acknowledgment of the effect of decisions about new schools and new sixth forms on local provision in other schools. I ask the Minister to comment both from an FE perspective and generally, because the issue isthe Bill’s direction of travel—the atomisation of education, as Neil Kinnock put it, which my party wants to avoid.

Jacqui Smith (Minister of State (Schools and 14-19 Learners), Department for Education and Skills; Redditch, Labour)

Onlookers to this debate might have thought that clause 10, or even the amendments, were about the future of education for 14 to 19-year-olds, or the collaborative role of FE colleges, but they are not—although those are important issues that we shall have ample opportunity to discuss when we reach clauses 61 and 62 and clause 149, which makes new provision for schools and FE colleges to be able to collaborate. I shall therefore focus my comments on the clause and the amendments.

The clause relates to special cases that are outside the competition provisions of clause 7 and the provisions of clause 9 whereby proposals may be made for new schools. One category of such proposals indeed relates to schools for 16 to 19-year-olds. However, the provision largely replicates an existing one and allows local authorities and others to publish proposals for foundation or voluntary schools that cater only for pupils above compulsory school age.

Although the proposals would be brought forward outside competition—the context is that therewould usually be a competition arranged by the Learning and Skills Council for significant new 16-to-19 provision—it would be non-statutory as opposed to the statutory competition process that we discussed in clause 7. It would be followed by the publication of proposals in the usual way. Capital funding for 16-to-19 provision is provided through the 16-to-19 capital fund, which is also administered by the Learning and Skills Council.

As the hon. Member for Brent, East made clear, the impetus for the amendments to the consultation provisions in the clause is that FE institutions should be consulted before new 16-to-19 schools or new sixth forms are proposed, and that in deciding proposals for new 16-to-19 provision, their effect on the existing provision should be taken into account.

I have no problem with those requirements. We agree that all those with an interest in proposals for new provisions should be consulted and that decision makers need to consider the effect of proposals on existing provision. Decision makers would not be doing their job properly if they did not consider all the relevant factors.

There is a technical problem with the amendments in that it is not necessary to put the requirements in the Bill. These matters are usually handled as they are in the clause as drafted, with a requirement to consult such persons as appear appropriate, having regard to statutory guidance from the Secretary of State.

At present, statutory guidance specifies that among those who must be consulted are other local authorities and other schools who may be affected by the proposals, parents and teachers in the area, local dioceses or national faith groups, the Learning and Skills Council and any other interested party, for  example the early years development and child care partnership when the proposals affect early years provision.

I accept the hon. Lady’s argument that FE colleges in the area would have an interest and would therefore need to be consulted. To put that beyond dispute, I am happy to give the Committee an assurance that statutory guidance on consultation for new schools and additions to existing schools under the Bill will specifically include FE colleges in the area as well as schools and the Learning and Skills Council. I hope the hon. Lady finds that assurance satisfactory.

Similar considerations apply to statutory guidance to decision makers on the factors that they will need to take into account in deciding proposals for new schools or additional provision at existing schools. Paragraph 8(6) of schedule 2 states that when deciding whether to give approval to proposals for new schools

“the local education authority must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.”

Paragraph 17(1)(b) applies that provision to the adjudicator.

In respect of new provision at existing schools, clause 19(6) provides that regulations may require decision makers to have regard to guidance from the Secretary of State. Existing guidance specifically states that in deciding proposals for new schools and new sixth forms, the decision maker must take into account the views of other schools and colleges in the area, as well as the views of the Learning and Skills Council.

I am happy to assure members of the Committee that new guidance under the Bill will carry these provisions forward and that the views of FE colleges in the area will be taken into account by those deciding on proposals. I hope that hon. Members will consider my proposals sufficient to meet their concerns and will agree not to press their amendments to a Division.

Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)

I want to thank the Minister for her tremendously helpful clarification and for putting those points on the record. We are extremely grateful to her for dealing with our amendments in the spirit in which they were tabled, in contrast to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who made another very long speech setting up a straw man to knock down, trying to find divisions between the parties when in truth we are pretty much in agreement on pretty much the same things. I thank the Minister for saying, on the record, what will be in the statutory guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.