Clause 44

12:45 pm

Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment 254, in clause 44, page 27, line 14, leave out ‘that an authority decide’.

Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 255, in clause 44, page 27, line 38, at end insert—

‘(9) Provision is not to be considered as giving rise to disproportionate expenditure only because that provision is more expensive than comparable provision.’.

Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

The two amendments go together. They would remove the subjective element in the decision about whether provision would involve disproportionate expenditure and replace it with an objective test that the authority would have to satisfy on the basis of national guidance. Rather fortuitously, amendment 254 uses wording that we have discussed this morning and that is already in the Bill, so it is difficult to imagine that the Minister will disagree with it.

Under clause 44, proposed new sections 17B, 17C and 17D of the Education Act 1996 are effectively re-enactments of sections 3A, 3B and 3C of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, with very little difference in the wording. Proposed new section 17A of the 1996 Act is the section under which local education authorities will acquire the duties and responsibilities of the Learning and Skills Council, and that in turn is based on section 3D of the 2000 Act.

The amendment would remove the subjective element in the decision about whether provision will involve disproportionate expenditure and replace it with an  objective test that an authority would have to satisfy on the basis of national guidance. Given that the Bill will replace provisions that give a reasonable assurance of a nationally consistent approach, it cannot be right now to adopt terminology that would allow each authority to decide subjectively for itself.

Although I am very much in favour of local decision making, it is important to have some comparability throughout the country. In fact, the deletion that I propose would clarify that the test is objective. That is the only way to ensure that the provision is consistent with proposed new subsection 17A(6) of the 1996 Act, which would oblige authorities to follow the Secretary of State’s guidance. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendments favourably, bearing in mind that, following the previous discussion this morning, there is a certain logic to them.

Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)

Amendment 254 would remove not the requirement to take account of disproportionate expenditure but local authorities’ powers to decide whether disproportionate expenditure would be incurred by delivery of the entitlement—although it is not clear whom the hon. Lady believes should make the decision instead. Local authorities are the bodies responsible for delivering the entitlement and, as such, should be responsible for making the corresponding decisions associated with its delivery. Furthermore, disproportionate expenditure will vary greatly between areas, and, therefore, local authorities are best placed to make that judgement.

We welcome the spirit of amendment 255, which would ensure that the diploma entitlement was delivered and that young people were offered not just the least expensive provision. That is our intention, too. However, the amendment is unnecessary as the diploma is a unique path that is not comparable to any other provision. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will publish statutory guidance on the delivery of the entitlements as we near the date on which they will take effect. The aim of the entitlements is to transform opportunity and achievement for young people, so that all young people are prepared by their education to succeed in life. The Bill introduces a number of measures to achieve that.

Local authorities are already making good progress to deliver the entitlements. By September, 95 per cent. of local authorities, 72 per cent. of schools and 88 per cent. of colleges will be involved in delivering them, and, as I said, local authorities will have to have regard to the Secretary of State’s statutory guidance when exercising their functions under the clause. The guidance will include further clarification on disproportionate expenditure. On the basis of my assurance that we will give authorities guidance, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.

Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

Perhaps I can clarify one matter. The point about the amendment removing “that an authority decide” was to replace the phrase with something that gave the local authority a clear basis on which to make its decision. The Minister has responded to say that, effectively, the criteria will be set up in statutory guidance. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)

I beg to move amendment 267, in clause 44, page 27, line 38, at end insert—

‘( ) The references in subsections (1) and (2) to persons in a local education authority’s area who are over compulsory school age but under 19 do not include persons who are subject to a detention order.’.