Clause 63

– in a Public Bill Committee at 9:15 pm on 17 March 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Securing provision of education and training

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (Education)

I beg to move amendment 236, in clause 63, page 41, line 5, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert

‘only where no alternative provision is available from external providers.’.

Photo of Christopher Chope Christopher Chope Conservative, Christchurch

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment 312.

Amendment 237, in clause 64, page 41, line 16, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—

‘(2) The YPLA may withdraw funding from the provider and secure the provision of financial resources to other persons providing or proposing to provide suitable education or training to persons in sections 58(a)(i) and 58(a)(ii).’.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (Education)

The clause that the amendment seeks to alter enables the YPLA to secure provision of education in particular circumstances; it may, for instance, secure provision while sub-regional groups of LEAs are being established. The amendment would constrain the YPLA, because we believe that it should be a funding body rather than one that plans and secures provision. We want to encourage providers to meet need, so the amendment essentially means that provision would be organised by the YPLA, but only where there are no external or underperforming providers. The amendment therefore seeks to limit the extension of the YPLA’s competence.

Amendment 237 attempts to remove intervention rights from the YPLA and ensure that it redirects funding to other providers instead. Its objective is not to inhibit provision, but to direct from where it emanates. We are interested to hear the Minister’s perception of what the limits on the YPLA’s powers will be in that regard.

Photo of Jim Knight Jim Knight Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families, Minister of State (Department for Children, Schools and Families) (Schools and Learners)

Government amendment 312 is consequent to the new local authority duties in relation to young offenders and will extend the YPLA’s powers to enable it to secure the provision of education and training for children who are subject to youth detention.

On amendment 236, clause 63 provides a critical element of support to the system. In those, it is hoped, rare circumstances, which the hon. Member for Yeovil discussed earlier, where a local authority is failing, or likely to fail, to fulfil its duty to commission suitable education or training, or where sub-regional groups of local authorities are not ready to take on that role, the YPLA will have the power to ensure that the education and training required to secure the outcomes for our young people is effectively commissioned. As the YPLA will not itself be a training provider, all providers will be external to it, so the amendment is problematic in that it would create a situation where the YPLA could never intervene in that way.

On amendment 237, intervention in the context of the YPLA’s powers under clause 64 means stepping in and supporting a local authority to develop a commissioning plan, ideally before any financial resources are transferred. In essence, such support would be a back-office function and would not affect the business planning of a local post-16 provider. Our whole direction here is to give as much decision making and accountability as possible to local areas, supported by the YPLA.

The effect of amendment 237 would be that when the YPLA felt the need to intervene in that way, it would only be able to withdraw funding from one provider and direct it to a different one, which seems a clumsy response. When a local authority is failing in its duty to secure suitable education or training opportunities for young people, that will become apparent through its commissioning plan for the coming year and not through the performance of an individual provider.  Through clause 64, we want to ensure that we retain the ability for a suitable education place for our young people to be commissioned, and that the YPLA can then ensure that the local authority tackles the capability issues in its commissioning process. A further safeguard is that the YPLA must consult the Secretary of State on the use of the provisions, so there should be no hiding place for local authorities. Local authorities have the duty and they have accountability to their local communities. They will also have the resources through the YPLA, but we do not want to see the YPLA, which will be a national body, overriding that accountability. Yes, it will support it; yes, it will challenge it; but no, it will not replace it altogether. I hope that, by reason of all that clarity, the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendments.

Photo of John Hayes John Hayes Shadow Minister (Education)

That sounds fair enough to me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 312, in clause 63, page 41, line 9, at end insert—

‘(3) The YPLA may secure the provision of suitable education for children subject to youth detention.’.—(Jim Knight.)

This amendment gives the YPLA the power to secure the provision of education for children subject to youth detention.

Clause63, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.