Organisation and Policy: Influencing Public Policy: The Learning and Skills Bill |
This is an abridged and annotated record of some of the most important discussions for adult learners which occurred when the Learning and Skills Bill went through the Committee Stage in the House of Lords in February 2000.
In editing the Hansard texts, which cover several hours a day over four separate days, the concern has been to focus on a number of issues which were of particular concern to NIACE. This does not mean that NIACE had no interest in the debates on other clauses, nor in the broader principles of the Bill, simply that these were some of the issues where our lobbying was concentrated and where our concerns were debated in ways that acknowledged the perspective of adult continuing education and lifelong learning.
Overall, the selections focus on Government responses to Amendments, not because those proposing changes were not eloquent or convincing - simply because study of the Government position suggests the most useful ground on which to press as the Bill goes forward.
Those issues indicated (*) below are five to which we will urge Peers to return during the Bill’s Report stage, now expected in the week commencing March 13th.
The full reports of debates can be found in House of Lords Hansard. A NIACE perspective on the Bill’s progress through Parliament is available on request. Please contact: Alastair Thomson or Alan Tuckett at NIACE. (0116) 204 4200.
The main consideration of this issue during Committee occurred on the first day, in the debate on the series of amendments (No. 32; 39; 42-44; and 50) to Clause 3, reported in Hansard, 8th February 2000, columns 600 - 605.
Lord Tope, Lord Boardman and the Bishop of Lichfield each sought to explore the meanings of and intentions behind Government’s use of the words "sufficient", "adequate" and "reasonable" and the differences between the language used here and that in Clause 2. Also of relevance here is Baroness Blackstone’s reply to Amendments 25 and 26 to Clause 2 (proposed by Baronesses Blatch and Sharp).
The Minister said:
"The LSC will be required to give priority to the learning of 16 to 19 year-olds, fulfilling our commitment in the White Paper to give all 16 to 19 year-olds an entitlement to education and training, whether full-time or part-time, if they want it. In response to the concerns expressed by the Committee, we expect the additional resources that we are devoting to post-16 learning to allow access to learning for all those who need it. We are making the biggest ever investment in further education: £3.9 billion in 2001-02, compared with £3.1 billion in 1998-99- an extra £800 million.
"In discharging its duties, the council must of course take into account the differing aptitudes and abilities of all the people for whom it has responsibility. The local LSCs will have discretion to secure the right balance and mix of post-19 provision in their area. Delivering progress towards the national targets will be an important part of their responsibilities. But to single out the needs of one group of adults and to give them priority over all adults would be wrong, although of course I have some sympathy with what lies behind the amendments. It would restrict the council's ability and discretion to make judgments about what may be the equally, and perhaps even more pressing, needs of other adults, including those with special needs or disabilities. The LSC must be able to exercise discretion.
"Although we judged it right to make a distinction between provision for the 16 to 19 age group and adults in much the same way as the previous government's legislation, it is certainly not the case that we regard learning for adults as unimportant…..
"We have already announced an enormous increase in resources available for adult learning in further education. In 1998-99 expenditure on adults in further education was £1.6 billion pounds. In 2001-02 it will be £2 billion. This will enable the number of further education students to increase by 650,000 by the academic year 2000-01, compared with 1997-98. We need to go further. We expect to widen participation substantially, and the major part of that expansion will be for adults. I do not accept that we are in any way undervaluing the learning needs of adults…..
"… we must get things right for younger learners in the first place. The challenge at 16 to 19 cannot be underestimated….. We are clear that the LSC's priority must be the 16 to 19 age group, and nothing must detract from that. Let us get this right and then we can focus the increasing resources we are devoting to adults into enhancing and developing higher level skills, not in tackling the results of earlier failure. If we can get it right, we will save on later expenditure. We will pick up the pieces from that failure and be able to invest more in developing adult skills."
"….. extending the entitlement has substantial resource implications. Although it is attractive in many ways, that point must be taken into account. For young people alone the council will be spending the best part of £4 billion pounds on an age group that covers a two-year cohort. As I said, we have increased the resources for adults and will continue to do so. But with the best will in the world, no government could put on the face of the Bill a commitment of the type that is sought. It would be misleading and deceptive to make a provision that we could not deliver; and equally it would have been misleading for us not to have made clear in the Bill our policy priorities. (Columns 572 - 573).
Lord Bach, for the Government, appeared to be particularly careful in reading from a prepared brief:
"The difference in words between the two clauses is intentional. The distinction between them is as follows. There is an entitlement at the ages of 16 to 19, but no government could enter an absolute guarantee to adults in the same way. This Government are extremely in favour of adult education and their record speaks very highly indeed for itself. However, for any government to pretend that resources were absolutely unlimited and that, therefore, they could do for adults exactly what they were going to do for 16 to 19 year-olds would be foolish; and, indeed, I venture to say, would not be believed by noble Lords and those outside this place.
"I turn now to the meaning of words. I should point out that I am doing my best here, because the meanings of these words may one day be interpreted in the courts of our land--who knows! The word "proper" in Clause 2 means quantity to meet the needs of individuals and of adequate quality; in other words, an entitlement, an objective test. Then we have the word "reasonable". This is the second time within a week that I have been faced with defining or discussing this word. As I said on the previous occasion, anyone who has been involved in the law for any length of time will know that it is tempting to try to define the word "reasonable", but the detail of it is always so difficult. However, I shall do my best.
"In the sense of Clause 3, "reasonable" means that if they are of a quality and quantity that the LSC can provide from its resources--again, an entitlement which applies to those aged 16 to 19--there will be something slightly less for those over 19. I am not talking about an intention not to put funds into adult education--indeed, that would be completely against this Government's intentions--but it is not quite the same. That is why the distinction between Clauses 2 and 3 is important. (Columns 602 - 603)
This matter was debated on the third day of the Committee stage. It was covered in the debate on a number of amendments, reported in Hansard, 15th February 2000, columns 1137 - 1150. The matter was also debated in columns 1179 - 1187.
The first was on amendment 181, tabled by Lord Rix. Responding to the debate, Baroness Blackstone said:
"…. Lady Blatch, referred to the common inspection framework and spoke of the different cultures within the ALI and Ofsted. Of course, the ALI is completely new and so in a sense does not have a culture, although I readily accept that the FEFC and training inspectorates have had somewhat different approaches. However, all three inspectorates have been working extremely closely to devise a common framework. I am confident that this will work well. The common inspection framework will set out the necessary principles about inspectorate expertise. To that end, I have received clear assurances from the three current chief inspectors--those of Ofsted, the Training Standards Council and the FEFC--that their teams will have all the necessary specialist skills and that this will be set out clearly in the framework. (Column 1139)
This led to the following exchange:
"… perhaps I may ask a question, again, relating to the two cultures. One is a self-evaluative approach; the other is very much an observational approach. How will that be dealt with? Will Ofsted be required to become more self-evaluative or will ALI inspectors who are on the common team become more observational?…."Baroness Blatch:
Baroness Blackstone: Here we want to see the best of both worlds brought together. I believe that there is a case for both an observational approach and for some self-evaluation. Self-evaluation obviously is a good motivator for people. At the same time, I entirely accept that some external scrutiny and observation is required. I believe that the two inspectorates will work together. One--Ofsted--obviously will rely rather more on the approach that it has used in sixth forms in the new role that it will play in relation to full-time 16 to 19 year-olds in sixth-form colleges. At the same time, the rather different, work-based environment on which the adult learning inspectorate will focus may need a slightly different approach. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness that the three chief inspectorates are working together to develop this common framework. As I said, there will be an opportunity for further consultation on that issue. (Column 1140)
The debate then moved to amendments 183; 184; 185; 194 and 194 proposed by Baroness Sharp. These sought toto rationalise and simplify the inspection system proposed for post-16 education by extending the remit of the adult learning inspectorate to cover post-16 education and training in the further education sector and limit the remit of the Chief Inspector of Schools. Baroness Sharp said, of the Government’s proposals:
"…. we are not alone in worrying that the Ofsted methodology is not appropriate for the mix of experience and learning that takes place in many further education colleges. The CBI expresses doubts as to whether such a methodology can cope adequately with the different circumstances of different institutions and, in particular, the workplace. The British Chambers of Commerce, headed by Chris Humphries, who chairs the Government's National Skills Task Force, goes further and calls the proposal to give Ofsted responsibility for inspecting provision in further education colleges "an inappropriate decision". The evidence continues:
"The idea that it is either feasible or valuable to inspect young learners' experience separately from that of the majority of adult learners in the same FE college or training provider programme and classroom is unsound and costly".
"The factors which shaped the approach, methods and style of Ofsted are not the same as those which have shaped the existing Further Education Funding Council Inspectorate or the Training Standards Council Inspectorate. For example, adult learners bring a much greater diversity of experience of work, civic and domestic responsibility for their learning than do children. Many are most likely to participate in learning on a part-time basis or intermittently for short periods. They are much more likely to be constrained as to where and when they can study. They often contribute to the cost of learning from their own disposable income. Many participate voluntarily, with the exception of some in workplace training. That can mean high levels of motivation, but also a greater likelihood that they will cease to participate if they are unconvinced of the learning's relevance or of value for money. They may be unclear about their learning needs and about whether particular courses of action will help them to meet their desired goals. Usually they have wider-ranging and more complex motivations for studying than do the young. They may have unhappy or negative experiences from the schooling system.
"All those are good reasons why Ofsted should not look into the further education sector. Yet, the whole tenor of Clauses 66 to 68 makes the Chief Inspector of Schools in England the senior partner in the proposed joint inspections. The adult learning inspector's junior role immediately places work-based learning and vocational learning in colleges at a disadvantage. In our earlier debates on the Bill, the Government and the Minister said that they did not want to separate education from training. This provision does just that. It puts academic education on a pedestal and vocational education and learning at its feet.
"When we debated the earlier clauses of the Bill, the Minister claimed that the Government wanted to overcome that binary divide between academic and vocational education and training and to treat education and training holistically. But the sort of thinking set out in the Bill underlies the divide between the adult learning inspectorate and the role of the Chief Inspector of Schools.
"The FE21 group of colleges put it rather well in its evidence when it said:
"We believe that the implication of Ofsted taking the lead in the inspection process is that providers, especially colleges, will be compelled into following the existing 16-19 model by the achievement oriented ethos of this inspection regime. This will be to the detriment of encouraging non-traditional learners into education because it does not appreciate the differences between the strategies for adult and young learners".
"It adds that in any case, the majority of learners in colleges are over the age of 19.
We support the Government in their emphasis on providing high quality education and training for our young people and for the continuing education needs of our nation. We acknowledge the role that inspection plays in maintaining and raising the quality of such provision. But these proposals, as they stand, are a mess. The further education sector has developed a range of quality control mechanisms. They are already subject to inspections from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, from the Audit Commission and from the further education and funding inspectors who would, we assume, form the core of the adult learning inspectorate.
"But now, in addition to that, it is proposed to add Ofsted to the further education sector and to make it the senior partner, even though it has no experience of that field. Surely it is better to do as we suggest: to make a clean break between schools and the further education sector; leave Ofsted where it is, in the schools sector; and give ALI the prime responsibility for inspection in further education…."
Baroness Blatch: "It falls to me to resort to colloquial language to describe this part of the Bill. It really is a dog's breakfast. There is no other description for it.
"…Lady Sharp, has been more elegant but equal in her criticism of the provisions in the Bill. Although the Association of Teachers and Lecturers welcomes some of the measures in the Bill, it is really welcoming the cultural approach which I described earlier of the FEFC inspections; namely, a process of self-evaluation. I believe that the Association of Teachers and Lecturers hopes that the ALI will subsume that approach to inspections and that the ALI will be given the responsibility for sixth-form inspections. There are so many options which one could go for if one is dismissing the proposals set out in the Bill.
(…)
In her response to the previous amendment the noble Baroness attempted to explain how the joint system would work. She said that all the bodies would work happily together; that it would be extremely effective; that there would be no confusion whatever; and that it would all be very meaningful. But the noble Baroness did not say whether the observational approach of Ofsted will have to change and whether the ALI will either subsume the evaluative approach or whether the ALI, which will be subservient to Ofsted in joint inspections, will absorb the observational role. I believe it was hinted that there would be a bit of each. Ofsted does not take that approach at the moment so it would have to change quite dramatically the way it approaches an inspection.
(…)
"Certainly, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers would be making the case that there is an argument for adopting the approach which the FEFC has operated and which it assumes and believes that the ALI will adopt. If it would prefer an evaluative approach, that is a different argument. That argument needs to be put to government so that a judgement is made on it. I suspect that some research has been done which indicates which process of inspection is the most effective. Would schools benefit from a self-evaluative approach? I do not know. But the argument is not that we should have this mish-mash of inspections, with 16 year-olds, depending on where they are being educated, being inspected differently. Rather it is that there should be a change of culture in school inspections. It would be worth hearing a case for that. If there is a good case for it, what would be the Government's plans to change it?
"This is a complete mess. When I talk to people in the adult education world and in the 16-plus world in the school sector, they say that they would like some clarity. They, too, would like to see less confusion than there is set out in the Bill. As I said, some bodies, like the ATL, welcome an evaluative approach but that is not what is provided in this Bill because the Bill provides a mix of the two.
"…I believe that we are adopting a seriously messy approach to the inspection of 16-plus education. The rationale of the Bill is to bring coherence to 16-plus education. That will not be achieved by this method of inspection.
Lord Dearing: "….The present structure of the inspections as set out in Clause 68 is not really a partnership or joint inspection. It is an inspection under the direction of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to a plan determined by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools producing a report offered by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools and following a composition of an inspectorate determined by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools.
"That particular approach puts the ALI in a totally subordinate position. Therefore, it is most unlikely to attract the quality of inspector required to be effective and will be at risk of losing that distinctive contribution which is needed for a community of learners which is adult rather than young, part-time rather than full-time, and possibly needing greater encouragement to engage in education and upskilling. After all, we are trying to create an adult learning society. If the Government are set on this particular approach, the result may be damaging to the Government's aspirations.
"…. I express great concern at the approach adopted both in the combination of the present clauses, and including, in particular, Clause 68.
Baroness Blackstone: "…The amendments …. would fundamentally change the character of the Bill. Amendment No. 183 would exclude the inspection of colleges outside the FE sector, including specialist provision for students with learning difficulties and disabilities which we have just discussed and about which her noble friend Lord Addington expressed concerns. The noble Baroness may want, on reflection, to acknowledge that that was not her intention.
"Amendment No. 184 extends the remit of the adult learning inspectorate so that it has sole responsibility for post-16 inspection other than sixth forms. As a consequence I understand that Ofsted's role in post-16 inspection would be restricted to only school sixth forms. I believe that is what the noble Baroness has in mind.
(…)
"… Our provisions will build on the best of the three existing inspection systems. I cannot understand why the noble Baroness finds that unacceptable.
"I pay tribute not just to Ofsted, which is well known for its work in raising standards in education, but also to the important work of the FEFC Inspectorate and the Training and Skills Council Inspectorate. They have done sterling work across the spectrum of post-16 provision, which we should acknowledge. We want to build on and draw on that sterling work in the new structures we are creating. Our proposals will combine the best traditions of the three existing inspectorates and produce a system far better than that we have at present.
"It is wrong to suggest that the two new inspectorates will be falling over each other. They will not; they will be working together. No single inspectorate could encompass the range and variety that has to be inspected in the whole of the post-16 provision of learning for both academic qualifications and, indeed, vocational skills.
"At Second Reading, and in the debate on the earlier amendment tonight, I explained that we shall have a common inspection framework. I believe that this will be a new, valuable and visionary document compatible with the quality improvement strategy at the centre of the work of the LSC. The collaboration of the two inspectorates--ALI and Ofsted--both using the common framework, will add considerable value. The new regime will also have rigour so that the inspectorates can take a penetrating look at standards across all streams of learning. Members of the Committee will appreciate that on standards generally there is considerable room for improvement.
"It may be helpful at this point if I say a little more about the common inspection framework. It will include a series of common principles for inspection, set out by the chief inspectors. I expect to see, for example, that inspection will give priority to judgments about teaching and that it will place emphasis on the standards achieved. It will also address continuous self-improvement and internal quality assurance.
"…I believe that internal quality assurance is a matter which FE colleges, sixth-form colleges, work-based training and school sixth forms should be able to embrace. There will also be principles relating to practical issues; for example, that joint inspection teams must reflect the expertise needed to inspect the range of provision, and that the balance of provision in the institution must be reflected within the inspection team. I refer, for example, to the proportion of inspectors from each inspectorate.
"There will also be a series of quality statements or judgments explaining what inspectors will be looking for in particular areas. The inspectorates also anticipate producing a handbook of practical arrangements to go alongside the statutory framework.
"… the restriction of Ofsted's role in post-16 inspection would be a considerable mistake. The experience and rigour of Ofsted, building on its expertise in school sixth forms, is surely relevant to sixth-form colleges. The benefit of that rigour would be lost…."
"Ofsted has brought together its considerable experience in a number of influential reports on effective sixth forms, modular A-levels and GNVQs. We have to remember that some 40 per cent of all students studying for A-levels and GNVQs are in the FE sector. So, there is a great deal of advantage to be gained from Ofsted being able to inspect across the two sectors in these important areas.
"For all those reasons, I should be reluctant to accept the amendments… which restrict Ofsted's role in post-16 work. As I have said, drafting on the common framework is being done by the inspectorates. At this stage, the Government have no formal role. That must be right and in keeping with the tradition of the independence of the inspectorates. However, I hope that the consultation in spring will coincide with a related consultation on the quality strategy of the LSC. I accept that that document, and the common inspection framework, will need to be compatible and coherent.
"As regards the two consultations on the framework, in the spring we hope to have the one to which I have alluded. There will also be the statutory three-month consultation under the procedures set out in Clause 67. That can take place only when the Bill is enacted. I believe that that will give ample opportunity for those with an interest in this area to comment upon it. It will mean that the framework will also quickly become a familiar document--all providers will know what it contains and what to expect when they are inspected.
(…)
Baroness Blatch: "…The Minister referred to a very "incoherent" system that the Government have apparently inherited. Can the noble Baroness say, quite specifically, in what way Ofsted has failed, given the fact that it has been responsible thus far for inspecting sixth-form education as part of the inspection of schools as a whole? Can she also say in what way the FEFC is incapable--or, indeed, its successor, the ALI would be incapable--of inspecting the quality of the teaching and the learning, as well as the training and its effect on adult learning environments?
"… Lady Sharp, raised an important point; namely, that it is not possible to extend the remit of any one inspectorate body to inspect right across post-16 education simply because you cannot extend Ofsted's remit any further. The very valid point was made that Ofsted now has almost cradle to grave responsibilities in any event. Indeed, that starts from nursery education, baby minding and carers and will now also include all 16-plus education under the extension already encompassed within the Bill. Answers to such questions are important to the debate.
Baroness Blackstone: "I am not sure whether the noble Baroness is opposed to Ofsted having a wider role. It is the Government's intention that it should and that it should begin with nursery education and playgroups, extending right through to the provision of further education. I believe that that will create a more integrated and better system of inspection.
"In implying that the present system is not terribly coherent, I was not in any way criticising Ofsted, the FEFC or the Training Standards Inspectorate. I am saying that the structure is poorly integrated. In effect, you have one group of inspectors inspecting A-level provision in schools and a totally different group of inspectors inspecting A-level provision in FE colleges. That is the what the Government are addressing: we want a single group of inspectors taking the lead in inspecting 16 to 19 provision and a single group of inspectors taking the lead in inspecting the specialist aspects of work-based training and adult education. They will use their respective expertise but work together in a team.
(….)
Baroness Sharp "….There is a very different ethos in the further education and adult education sector from that in schools. Yes, the Minister is quite right. By not moving Amendment No. 182 (and thereby removing Amendment No. 187 from this group) we have withdrawn the earlier suggestion that the adult learning inspectorate should have the right to go into sixth forms. I do not believe that that was a coherent idea. We now have a coherent set of inspections in the schools--indeed, Ofsted now rules from the cradle through to the end of schooling. But the way in which Ofsted looks at such things is very different from the way in which the further education world looks at them. (Columns 1143 - 1150)
This matter was debated on third day of the Committee stage when Amendments 189, 190; 191 were considered along with the Motion that Clauses 62 - 64 stand part. The relevant passages in Hansard for 15th February are columns 1167 - 1173.
Baroness Sharp moved Amendment No.189 to insert a new clause after clause 52. This was intended to place on the Chief Inspector of Adult Education a responsibility, analogous to that given to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England, to initiate and undertake area inspections. She said:
"It may be obvious that the learners, the teachers and the planning and delivery of learning opportunities for adults all differ significantly from schools. The factors which shaped the approach, methods and style of Ofsted are not the same as those which have shaped the existing Further Education and Funding Inspectorate and the Training Standards Council Inspectorate. Ofsted's experience of inspecting post-16 education outside schools is limited and it has hitherto shown itself to have little interest in developing its existing remit to inspect adult education.
"The 1992 Further and Higher Education Act specified that the Chief Inspector,
"shall have a general duty of keeping the Secretary of State informed about the quality of education provided in local education authority institutions; the educational standards achieved in such institutions, and whether the financial resources made available to such institutions are managed efficiently".
"This is not a role to which Ofsted has attached much priority. Between 1992 and 1998, Ofsted conducted just 12 inspections of local authority adult and community education. During 1998 and 1999, Her Majesty's Inspectorate carried out full inspections of just three LEA adult services. Her Majesty's Inspectorate also inspected access to adult learning in 13 local authorities and family learning in 28 authorities. This contrasts with 4,520 Section 10 inspections in that year: 3,508 of primary schools, 704 of secondary, 239 of special and 69 of pupil referral units.
"In contrast, in its first year of operation, the Trading Standards Council carried out 300 inspections of work-based training between May 1998 and February 1999 in 14 different occupational areas ranging across agriculture, manufacturing, engineering, retailing and health care.
"… these amendments seek to give the new adult learning inspectorate powers to conduct area inspections, so as properly to ensure that, whatever the level of public funding provided by the learning and skills council, area inspections can be carried out to investigate the coherence of provision within the area….".
In reply Baroness Blackstone said:
"…Area inspections represent an important new policy. The focus of our concern is the very pressing need to raise the standard of 16 to 18 provision in certain parts of the country. These are mostly, but not exclusively, urban communities where both participation in full-time education and, I am afraid to say, attainment are particularly low. The inspections will make a major contribution to raising the standard and relevance of provision for young people who must have access to high quality education and training if they are to obtain jobs and remain employable.
"It is perhaps worth explaining further that these inspections will provide the means by which we can judge whether the entitlement that we have given to young people between the ages of 16 to 19 is being discharged properly. If young people are being let down in a particular area, if resources are being misapplied, we need to instigate action on their behalf.
"The same issues do not arise in post-19 learning….. our intention is to expand greatly the number of adults in learning and certainly to improve the quality of learning that is available. But, where there is no entitlement to education and training, we do not have quite the same requirement for inspections such as those intended in the clauses.
"In replying to earlier amendments, I explained how essential it is for Ofsted to be involved in post-16 work. Let there be no mistake: Ofsted already makes a crucial contribution to the inspection of 16 to 18 education. It has inspected every school with a sixth form. Using this extensive inspection database, it has published influential reports on the characteristics of effective sixth forms and on level 3 qualifications; and it is one of the most potent levers we have for raising standards.
"…..Clauses 62 to 64 are constructed on the principle that Ofsted will lead area inspections, albeit with the assistance of the adult learning inspectorate. I cannot accept a series of amendments which would give this vital work to the adult learning inspectorate alone, to the exclusion of Ofsted. The logic is absolutely clear: Ofsted not only has the most extensive expertise in this area, it has the majority of the 16 to 18 remit under the Bill's provisions. Ofsted should lead. It would be ludicrous to cut Ofsted out of the equation or to make its role a very minor one.
"Area inspections are needed to ensure that local providers meet local labour market needs; to see that we get best value for money from the substantial public funding being invested; and that where standards need to be raised, there is a sound basis for intervention.
"The role of Ofsted is essential for the same reasons that we need Ofsted to take on the 16 to 18 remit. At the risk of repeating arguments, let me once again stress the existing crucial contribution it makes to the inspection of 16 to 18 school education. It knows what to look for and it will do the bulk of the work. I have every confidence that Ofsted, ably assisted by ALI, will make a massive difference to the educational and eventually economic well-being of these disadvantaged areas.
"We shall need the provisions in Clause 63 in full. There must be a single report made by Ofsted, as it is the lead inspectorate, but the report will of course reflect the views of ALI where it has made a contribution to the area inspection. I do not believe that the noble Baroness has argued against the principle that we need single reports to be handled in this way--only on the question of which inspectorate should lead. For the reasons I have given, the duty to make the report needs to fall to Ofsted.
"It is also self-evident that we need action plans after area inspections. At present, there is no obligation for anything to happen once an area report is received. The clause will make sure that the funding bodies--the LSC and the LEAs--in consultation with schools, colleges, employers and all other relevant bodies concerned with education and training in the area, take matters forward. The issue of ensuring good 16 to 18 provision is far too important to allow the possibility of inertia.
(…)
Baroness Sharp responded:
"I thank the Minister for her reply to the amendments. We do not dispute the need for area inspections; nor do we dispute that at present there is far too much variation in the quality of provision across areas and that improvements need to be made. However, we are concerned that in such area inspections, Ofsted will always take the lead, as specified in Clauses 62 to 64. However, when looking at the country as a whole, it is clear that in many areas school sixth forms play only a minor part in the provision of post-16 education. For that reason, we feel that the chief inspector of adult learning should be given at least an equal role to that of the Chief Inspector of Schools. That is the burden of these amendments. The chief inspector of adult learning should be put on a par with the Chief Inspector of Schools and should be able to call on the schools inspector to provide advice and guidance in relation to school sixth forms when necessary.
"I say again that we do not dispute the need for a team effort here. However, under the provisions of Clauses 62 to 64, there is no doubt that the chief inspector of adult learning will play second fiddle to the Chief Inspector of Schools. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but we may want to return to this on Report.
On the question of whether Clause 59 should stand part of the Bill, Baroness Sharp said:
"We are of the view that the experience of education and training in this sector differs markedly from school-based experience. The experience of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England is wholly school based. His remit within that sector is already wide. Clause 59 would give Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England the residual (or "mopping up") responsibility of inspecting any institution in the further education sector which did not fall wholly within the responsibilities of the adult learning inspectorate.
"Under our proposals, ALI's responsibilities would be widened to include all further and adult education establishments. Therefore, the residual role is, by definition, that of ALI rather than that of the Chief Inspector of Schools. Clause 59 is therefore, in our eyes, redundant and should not stand part of the Bill.
In reply, Baroness Blackstone said:
"This clause places a duty on Her Majesty's chief inspector to secure the inspection of institutions within the FE sector, except where the responsibility is solely within the remit of the adult learning inspectorate. There are also provisions for reports of such inspections and for the writing and publication of action plans by providers, where an inspection report has been produced, which are analogous to those applying to ALI under Clause 51.
"I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, opposes the clause: it runs counter to her alternative proposals, which were debated earlier, that ALI should be the only post-16 inspectorate. But that amendment was withdrawn and I am a little surprised that the arguments are being reopened. For the avoidance of doubt, let me again explain briefly why this clause must stand part of the Bill.
"I have argued that two inspectorates will be better than one to cover the vast range of post-16 provision; that the common framework will add value by providing clear principles for the new regime, allowing all providers to know what the inspectorates are looking for; and that co-operation and collaboration will bring additional benefits.
Ofsted is integral to our proposals. As I have already said, it has a vast wealth of relevant experience in 16 to 18 provision through its work in school sixth forms. It would be wasteful and, indeed, irresponsible, to ignore that experience: the database of inspection evidence from every school; the way in which those data have been distilled into influential reports on what makes sixth-form provision effective; the reports on modular A-levels, and so on. All that expertise would go to waste.
"Finally, Ofsted has substantial influence on standards in schools. It can have the same influence across the new remit set out in Clause 59… (Columns 1179 -1180)
Following that debate, Lord Haskel moved amendment 196, limiting the Chief Inspector of Schools' right to direct joint inspections where the majority of students attending the institution are adults. He said (Column 1180 - 1181):
"the Minister spoke about the overlapping responsibilities of the two inspection regimes; that for 13 to 18 year-olds and that for those over 19. Indeed, we have had a lot more discussion on that subject this evening. The Minister told us that the adult learning inspectorate will be responsible for the inspection of adult work-based training and adult provision in FE colleges and that Ofsted will be responsible for other inspections.
"As we have heard, there will be joint inspections of FE colleges and at work-based training where both adults and young learners are being trained. However, there must be a leading inspection body. It seems that there will be some turf wars, in particular, at the FE colleges, where both inspection teams may apply. Other noble Lords have referred to the possible difficulties.
"The purpose of the amendment is to try to be helpful over such a possible conflict. It is reasonable for the relevant inspectorate to be determined by whichever is the largest group of learners to be inspected; Ofsted where the majority are under 18, and the adult learning inspectorate where the majority are over 18.
(….)
Lord Dearing: "I rise to speak in broad support of the amendment. I have been involved in education for a number of years and throughout that period I have been concerned that we have had two cultures: the culture of what I describe as academic education and the culture of vocational--applied--learning. There has been a tendency for each to engage in disparagement of the other, to be proud of its own culture and not to profit from what the other has to offer. It is in pursuance of that feeling that in one report in which I was engaged I recommended to the previous government that the body I chaired--the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority--should merge with the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, so that the two cultures could learn from each other to the benefit of students. That recommendation was accepted and there is now one body comprehending both segments of learning. I was also engaged in a report in higher education, which was concerned with developing a unity and a coherence throughout the whole field of learning. Therefore, contrary to what others have argued, I see positive advantage in drawing on the expertise of both inspectorates--HMI-Ofsted and the FE Inspectorate. Each can profit by working with the other.
"It was only because of my concerns about the specific provisions of Clause 68 that I spoke on the earlier amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. In contradistinction to Clauses 66 and 67, where the Bill proposes that the two heads of the inspection regimes should collaborate in working out an approach, under Clause 68, without qualification, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools is put in the lead. It is for him to direct the inspection; it is for him to make a plan; it is for him, under the draft regulations, to determine how many from each inspectorate should be engaged; it is for him to make the report. I wonder why the Government should have concluded that the adult learning inspectorate should be placed in such a subordinate position when it is, I presume, the repository of the greatest experience and expertise of inspection in FE colleges.
"It might be that one thought that the FE Inspectorate has not established the reputation--the well deserved reputation--of Ofsted for forthright, hard and effective inspections. Yet when I looked at the last annual report of the FE Inspectorate I did not find that it was a soft, punch-pulling report. Indeed, had the head of the FE Inspectorate the same remarkable talents of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools to capture public attention and to catch the headlines, a remarkable critical headline could have been derived from his last report.
"Having said that 11 per cent of colleges did not have effective leadership, the report went on to say that,
"we do not have a sufficient number of effective principals if the management of one in nine colleges (11%) is unsatisfactory".
"As I read that, he was saying plainly that 50 principals were not up to their job. That is tough talk.
"I do not see evidence in the report that the FE Inspectorate is a soft number. I am therefore concerned that there should, in this clause, have been a decision to put Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools unequivocally in the lead in every aspect of the inspection.
"I invite the Government to consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, has proposed, leadership according to where the majority of the students are. I understand that in further education there are 4 million students, of whom 3 million are adult and 1 million are young people. That suggests that there might be scope in relation to the needs of pupils for the FE inspectorate to be in the lead.
"The Government may consider that suggestion over-adventurous. They may be prepared to consider importing the principle that they have adopted in the two preceding clauses; namely, that there should be joint leadership of the inspection. Is that impossible? I cannot see why. For example, it is proposed in the draft regulations that the chief inspector must reflect the collective judgments of the inspectors who have conducted the joint inspection. If it is a requirement to reflect the judgment of the inspection team, which is a collective one, I cannot see a problem in the report not being that of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools but a joint report by the two inspectorates.
"I wonder whether the Government feel it essential, in advance of any actual experience of joint inspection--which, as I have argued, has much to commend it, bringing the experience of two cultures to bear--I wonder whether they feel it imperative, to enshrine so much of the detail of the arrangements in the main statute rather than in regulation. Are the Government prepared to consider at least--so as not to demean the standing of the adult learning inspectorate and thereby discourage first-rate people from applying to be its members (no one likes to be cast permanently in a subordinate role in one's career)--that the reports should be joint reports, and that the composition of the team should reflect the balance of the students in the institution?
"While I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, I suggest to the Government that, if that provision is too much, there are lesser proposals that could be offered. I invite the Government to consider whether, on Report, they would see merit in moving from their present position.
In summing up for the Government, Baroness Blackstone said:
"... I begin by clearing up an important preliminary point. There should never be two inspections of an FE college, one by ALI and one by Ofsted. Every college, like every school, will have a single inspection that involves one team, usually comprising some ALI, and some Ofsted, inspectors. There will be a single report. In a few sixth-form colleges with no adults, there will be a sole inspection by Ofsted; and in a few adult colleges with no 16 to 18 year-olds, there will be a sole inspection by ALI.
"In supporting the amendment, noble Lords have argued that in the case of joint inspections, the lead inspectorate should be determined according to whether 16 to 18 year-olds or adults are in the majority. I can see the logic of that. Unfortunately, it is not quite that simple. If we rely on a headcount of students above and below the age of 19, we shall have a completely misleading guide to the work of the two inspectorates. Nearly all 16 year-olds in FE are full-time students. In contrast, nearly all adults are part time, typically taking courses which amount to one-fifth, perhaps one-quarter, or occasionally one-third, of a full-time course. In terms of "full-time equivalent student numbers"--what we might term "volume of provision"--the split between the two inspectorates is approximately equal.
"I shall illustrate the problem with some practical examples. In terms of headcount, there are only 87 colleges--one fifth of the sector--with more 16-18 year-olds than adults. Virtually all these are sixth form colleges. Yet noble Lords may be surprised to note that not all sixth form colleges have such a majority. Over 20 in fact have more adults than young people. And many others have nearly as many adults as 16-18 year-olds.
"The explanation is that many sixth form colleges have considerable numbers of part-time adult evening class students, perhaps studying for as little as two hours a week. This may be completely worthy and desirable community education, but I should be very surprised if any sixth form college regarded this as its main mission. And in terms of hours of taught provision it will of course be less than the A-level and advanced GNVQ work in the sixth form college. It would be completely wrong, therefore, for the ALI to direct inspections in these circumstances, although I would expect an Ofsted-led team to have good support from the ALI in looking at the quality of the evening class provision to which I have just referred.
"These arguments are not confined to sixth form colleges. In many general FE colleges, tertiary colleges and agricultural colleges there will be a similar pattern of large numbers of 16-18 year-olds on full-time courses; and numerically more part-time adults. But the volume--and volume is important here--of 16-18 provision will be greater in at least half of all colleges. Even where the numerical balance seems overwhelmingly in favour of adults, there are caveats. For example, at Bracknell and Wokingham College there are nearly 12,000 adult students, compared with only 1,100 16-18 year-olds. But the number of 16-18 year-olds is still greater than in very many sixth form colleges. It is therefore right that Ofsted will have a very substantial role in the inspection of these colleges. These are practical illustrations of why the amendment would not be acceptable, but I wish also to make a few points of general principle.
"First, the Government do not intend to prescribe responsibility by formula, either on the face of the Bill or in subsequent regulations. Let us imagine for a moment a college where the provision is almost equally divided between adults and young people. It would make no difference whether we were using headcounts, full time equivalents or any other formulation. Let us imagine that a few weeks before the inspection, it is discovered that the proportion of adults to young people is 51 per cent to 49 per cent. The ALI therefore prepares to direct the inspection. But at the time of inspection, because of new enrolments, the proportion may have changed to 49 per cent-51 per cent the other way. The ALI no longer has the vires to lead, and the law is brought into disrepute.
"A numerical formula, however constructed, simply would not work. And because of the wide variation in character in colleges, alternatives such as giving Ofsted the lead for sixth form colleges and the ALI the lead for general FE colleges would not be workable. A lot of general FE colleges--tertiary colleges in particular--have a major focus on 16-18 provision. Only in the case of minimal overlap of remits--for example, in the adult residential colleges where there would be at most a tiny handful of 16-18 year-olds, should the ALI take the sole lead.
"The Government want to avoid formulaic prescription, and to give the two chief inspectors a good deal of operational freedom, so that the complex planning for joint inspections in FE colleges can be done on a case by case basis. The general principle of having inspection teams composed in a way which broadly reflects the volume of provision is a good one, and I intend that this shall be enshrined either in the regulations made under Clause 68 or in the common inspection framework. In this way, using a harmonised approach with multi-disciplinary teams working collectively, joint inspections will be highly effective operations and, I hope, potent levers, which is something that we all want, to raise standards.
"Nonetheless, in a joint inspection process there has to be some clarity about who is in the lead. That is why I have some reservations about what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has recommended. I believe that colleges will expect such clarity. If we did not set out clearly in the Bill who should lead, we could properly be accused of ducking the issue. The Government have chosen Ofsted. I do not in any way detract from the experience and skills of the other two inspectorates. However, unlike the ALI, Ofsted is already fully established with a proven track record of improving standards.
"I have spoken at some length because this amendment raises important issues. For both practical reasons and those of principle, the Government have set out a clear policy. I recognise that the choice we had to make was a difficult one. However, I believe that it is a clear solution which will be acceptable. Reluctantly, therefore, I cannot accept my noble friend Lord Haskel's amendment and I hope that he will not press it. (Columns 1184 - 1186)
This issue was considered on February 10th in Amendment 113 (covering clause 19 and Schedule 2), tabled by Baroness David, Lord Tope and Baroness Sharp. The relevant passages of Hansard cover 853 - 855.
Baroness Sharp said:
"The amendment proposes that local councils will mirror the national body by establishing two separate committees, one for young people and another for adults, with duties parallel to those of the national committees. The interests of adults and young people frequently diverge. Local councils will be the executive arm of the national body and it is vital that the needs of the two separate communities are effectively represented locally. Replicating the two committees locally will ensure wider representation and a greater range of interests being heard.
"We are particularly anxious that there will be adequate representation for adult learners whose needs, with the current emphasis on the social exclusion agenda, may tend to be overlooked locally. The Government must consider the amendment seriously. If they are to live up to their words that the ethos behind the Bill is to encourage bottom-up rather than top-down initiatives, it is important to provide a focus for such initiatives locally.
In reply, Baroness Blackstone said:
"I agree with the noble Baroness that the LSC should focus clearly on adult learning as well as the needs of young people. An approach that will attract adult learners will often be different from that appropriate for 16 to 19 year-olds. To ensure that the needs of both groups are fully reflected in the LSC's decision-making, we have made provision in Schedule 3 for a young people's learning committee, whose role will be appropriate at a national level. Local LSCs will wish to seek the advice of experts and may want to establish committees for that purpose. Nothing in the Bill prevents them doing so.
"There are many circumstances in which that would be beneficial and will happen. Our guidance to the council will reflect that view. We want to preserve a local flexibility to allow LSCs to manage their own business, so it would not be appropriate to stipulate that every LSC must establish two committees in the form proposed. The decision to set up an adult or young people's committee should rest with the local councils. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sharp: "I much appreciate the emphasis that the Minister placed on local flexibility. It is valuable to have on record the Government's expectation that there may frequently be local replication of the two committees. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The arguments for an LSC Quality Committee (analogous to the FEFC’s statutory duty to have a Quality Assessment Committee (section 9 of the 1992 FHE Act) were made in the debate on Amendments 146 and 148. Proposed by Baroness David, Lord Tope and Baroness Sharp, the debate is covered in Hansard for 10th February 2000 (Columns 881 - 884). (The two Amendments were taken with Amendment 147)
"….In addition to the young people's learning committee and the adult learning committee there should be a quality improvement and recognition committee.
"The idea here is that there should be a statutory quality recognition and improvement committee, to be set up as a formal committee, in order to make public the local learning and skills council's quality improvement strategy. It would have three main functions: first, to co-ordinate the council's duties in response to the two inspectorates we shall be discussing on Tuesday; and, secondly, to operate a quality threshold, to include good advice and guidance, progression opportunities, a contribution to widening participation and value for money. This will prevent cherry picking by private training providers who might otherwise provide high-volume, short-term, easy-to-fill courses, leaving other providers funded at the same rate with a harder-to-fill, costlier-to-make provision aimed at securing wider participation. There has to be a legitimate concern to balance competitiveness of offer and quality.
"Thirdly, we should like the committee also to secure arrangements for the funding of programmes without qualifications. We shall be looking at Clauses 85 to 89 of the Bill next week, but these clauses concern only external qualifications. The prospectus which lies behind the Bill very helpfully makes it clear that quality assurance in other provision--provision that does not necessarily lead to external qualifications--will be publicly supported by the LSC. We should like to have that incorporated in the schedule if possible.
Lord Bach, for the Government, suggested that the separation of inspection and funding made a separate committee unnecessary.
"I turn to the other two amendments in the group, Amendments Nos. 146 and 148, the purpose of which is to require the learning and skills council to establish a third committee--a quality recognition and improvement committee. Those amendments reflect the current statutory requirements on the Further Education Funding Council. I want to take this opportunity to say how much the Government appreciate the contribution which members of the Quality Assessment Committee have made to the work of the Further Education and Funding Council.
"However--and we shall of course be debating the matter next week--our proposal is to separate the work of inspection from the funding body and to give it to OFSTED and the new Adult Learning Inspectorate. Our intention is that action on quality should be fully incorporated within the mainstream of LSC business. The specific functions listed under Amendment No. 148 will be the responsibility of the entire council, not a separate part of it…(Column 883 - 884)
Amendment 99 was tabled by Lord Tope and Baroness Sharp and discussed on 10th February along with Amendment 97. It proposed that, when formulating strategy, the Learning and Skills Council should have a duty to consult with relevant government departments and local authorities.
Baroness Sharp said:
"… The amendment seeks to place a duty on the Learning and Skills Council to consult with government departments other than the Department for Education and Employment and to consult also with local authorities. Again, we are looking not at the question of consultation at a local level but of consultation at a national level. Other government departments and local authorities are important as providers, commissioners and users of skills and it is important that there should be some discussion with them. The amendment is, if you like, seeking that joined-up government be put on the face of the Bill….".
Replying for the Government, Baroness Blackstone said:
"The sentiment…. very much chimes with our expectation that the LSC should be an inclusive body which reaches out and works effectively with all relevant partners. We want to see meaningful consultation ingrained into its culture. We expect that the people we recruit to the most senior posts will be people who can network effectively across a wide range of interests.
"… we certainly intend that the LSC will consult widely with all its key partners in putting together its strategic plans. We stated that clearly in the LSC prospectus. This will be essential if it is to draw on the experience that others can offer.
"However, we see no reason to set this out as a specific obligation in the Bill. Consultation is already required with a number of bodies, including LEAs, on the national LSC's guidance to its local arms. There is also already provision for wide consultation on the important local plans, and we will consider how we might secure the involvement of all local authorities in this. Key partners will also have a direct input into the direction of the national LSC through their links with members of the council itself, and, of course, with members of the adult and young people's learning committees, and through links at sectoral, regional and local level.
The first occasion this topic was considered was on the first day of Committee (February 8th) when a block of Amendments (Nos. 57 - 60; 87 - 90; 162; 163; 171 and 172) were debated. These included government amendments as well as ones from all other benches. The debate is recorded in Hansard, Columns 624 - 630)
Baroness Blackstone began the debate:
"The amendments in this group all concern the powers of the LSC and the CETW in relation to the funding of information, advice and guidance services. We launched a new initiative last year to develop these services at local level, boosted by a new investment of £54 million over three years. Over time, our aim is to ensure that adults everywhere can find the support that they need to make better choices about learning and about careers. As we announced in Learning to Succeed, we intend that responsibility for planning and funding these services should lie with the LSC.
"The amendments standing in my name clarify the powers of the LSC and of the CETW in the area of information, advice and guidance. They do so in two ways. First, the amendments make clear that the LSC will have the power to fund the provision of "guidance"--as well as "information and advice"--about education, training and connected matters. This is not simply a question of semantics. To practitioners in this field the terms "information", "advice" and "guidance" have well-established and precise meanings. In essence, they describe different levels of engagement between a professional adviser and a client.
"It may be helpful if I give the Committee some concrete illustrations of the differences between the three terms. Let us take the example of an adult who wished to take a course in, say, horticulture. "Information" would simply tell that client what learning opportunities were available in his or her locality in the general discipline of horticulture. "Advice" would typically involve a short discussion with a professional adviser. The adviser would be able to discuss with the client, for example, which courses might be most suitable and what entry requirements might apply, as well as to "signpost" the client on to further sources of advice. "Guidance" would be an altogether more involved process, where the adviser might encourage the client to think through his or her motives for wishing to pursue a course in horticulture, to reflect on exactly what they hoped to gain from it and to relate this to their wider plans for career development.
"We want the LSC to have the power to fund all these different types of provision. My noble friend Lady David raised the point with me at Second Reading and I am pleased, with these amendments, to be able to put the Government's position beyond doubt.
"The amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lady David would restrict the funding powers of the LSC so that they were exercisable only in relation to information, advice and guidance. ….(They).. would restrict the funding powers of the LSC so that they were exercisable only in relation to information, advice and guidance. That would mean that the LSC would be able to fund only organisations that were able to provide all three of these types of provision. I hope that the Committee will agree that such a change would not be sensible. We want as many organisations as possible to be involved in the provision of information, advice and guidance at a local level, including community and voluntary organisations, which are particularly well placed to reach out to socially disadvantaged people and to provide a high quality service at the grass roots.
"Insisting that any organisations which the LSC funds must be providers of guidance, as well as of information and advice, would risk squeezing out precisely these organisations. That is not a change that we would want to see. I wrote to my noble friend Lady David after the Second Reading debate to address her concerns and make these points. I hope that my reiteration of the arguments here today will convince her that her concerns are unfounded and that she does not need to press her amendments.
"The second effect of the Government's amendments would be to make clear that the LSC would have the power to fund information, advice and guidance about employment, as well as about education and training. This is an important clarification. Since the beginning of the current financial year, my department has been developing through local learning partnerships a publicly funded information, advice and guidance service for adults. That service--for which we intend the LSC to be responsible--is certainly intended to help adults make better choices about learning. The consequences of the wrong choices about learning--both for the individual and the taxpayer--can be quite serious. As we expect the number of adults involved in learning to increase significantly over the next few years, there is obviously a sound argument for ensuring that they have good access to reliable advice on the subject.
"However, it is also important that the service should offer support to adults in their decisions about careers. Changes in the labour market and in the nature of work mean that people can expect to change their job much more frequently during their lifetime. That is, of course, one of the major influences on the demand for learning among adults, as all of us need to update our skills continuously through life. Therefore we want adults to have access to information, advice and guidance about learning and work and, perhaps most critically, about the relationship between the two.
"For all these reasons, it is important that the LSC's funding power in this area is not too narrowly drawn and that it should extend to information, advice or guidance about employment as well as about learning…"
Baroness David: I thank my noble friend for what she has done in this matter, which goes back to Second Reading. She has been extremely obliging and helpful. At Second Reading I said:
"I hope that the Minister will accept an amendment to add "guidance" to the phrase ... If that cannot be agreed, as I hope that it will, can the Minister assure us that the terminology in the Bill includes access to an in-depth interview conducted by a trained adviser, which is what "guidance" means in this context?".--[Official Report, 17/1/00; col. 916.]
It is important to know what "guidance" means in this context. It is not absolutely obvious to any casual reader.
"When my noble friend wrote to me and said that she was tabling an amendment to put "guidance" into the Bill I was extremely grateful. But then I was slightly disappointed when I saw that it said "all guidance" when I had hoped it would say "and guidance". I wrote to her and pointed out this matter, and I received a convincing reply in the letter that she wrote to me on 1st February.
"I have tabled the amendment again because I want the Minister to explain to the Committee exactly why "all" was right and "and" was wrong. I hope she will repeat for the benefit of the Committee and to record the point in Hansard the reasons for this. I shall not be pressing my amendment. I tabled it only to draw out her response. I think that she has probably already given it.
Baroness Blatch: "Perhaps I was not concentrating enough, but I was concerned about "all". Certainly in my amendments I had intended it to be "and guidance". I note that in Amendment No. 87, which stands in the name of the Minister, the words "advice or guidance" appear. It would be helpful when the Minister responds--without taking too much of the Committee's time--if she could give an explanation of that.
"Although the Minister, in moving the amendment, was very helpful--it is clear that there has been a very positive response to the Second Reading--one point was not covered in regard to the role of the advisory service under the new arrangements. There is some concern about what its role will be, how it will work in practice, and what will be the practical arrangements for moving from the existing system to the new arrangements.
"As has been said, the term "advice about educational training or connected matters" is inadequate. It should be more than mere information. We know that many people are given only information and then left wallowing and wondering what on earth they should make of it. Too many people need their hands holding at that point, and for some young people who drop out of mainstream education very often it is the key point at which they could have been helped. Their problems might have been resolved if they had had proper guidance at that time.
"So many people will require more than information. Their interests, their aptitudes and their skills need to be properly identified under a more guided and, if I may say so, independent and objective approach, without being over- prescriptive or dictatorial, in order to match their need for learning and working opportunities.
"The Careers Service National Association has in fact suggested some definitions for "Information", "Advice" and "Professional guidance". I should like to place them on the record because they are worth studying. First:
"Information refers to data on learning and work opportunities conveyed through printed matter, audio visual materials or computer software, or through information officers in careers services or helpline services such as Learning Direct.
Advice refers to providing an immediate response to the needs of clients who present an enquiry or reveal a need that requires more than a straightforward information response. It is usually limited to helping with the interpretation of information, and with meeting needs already clearly understood by the client, and may or may not include signposting to a guidance interview where a more in-depth response can be provided.
Professional guidance--
this point has been touched on by the Minister--
"reflects an in-depth interview conducted by a trained adviser which helps clients to explore a range of options, to relate information to their own needs and circumstances, and to make decisions about their career i.e. their progression in learning and/or work. It may or may not include psychometric assessment.
There also needs to be an indication of the criteria the LSC will use when contracting out services to provide career information, advice and "guidance to ensure that the service is delivered by people who are appropriately qualified--the Institute's Register of Guidance Practitioners could be a useful quality instrument here".
"That is advice from the Careers Service National Association. It would be helpful if the Minister was able to say something definitive about the role of the present Careers Service under the new arrangements.
Baroness Sharp: I am relieved to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady David, is adequately satisfied that "advice or guidance" means the same as "advice and guidance" because, on the face of it, it does not sound like the same thing. I am concerned not only for the reasons explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but also for the adult guidance services where that provision is of initial key importance if the Government's concern to widen participation is to be successfully achieved.
"The Guidance Council has identified the key elements of guidance. "Information or advice" does not cover the range of activities adequately. The omission of the word "guidance" from the text here is a key concern because the result will be that the local learning and skills councils will consider that they are unable to fund the guidance activities and, if the provision is "advice or guidance", they will limit themselves to advice and not provide guidance. It is important that we understand from the Minister precisely what role is seen here for adult guidance services; how extensive or discreet those services are to be; and how much continuity may be maintained.
"What is the role of guidance services within the local learning partnerships? I should be glad for some clarification.
Baroness Blackstone: "I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady David for what she has done in encouraging the Government to bring forward the amendments. I certainly believe that the Bill has been improved as a result….. Guidance is of course a much more in-depth approach than simply providing information or advice. The Government intend greatly to extend services in that area as a consequence of the Bill. They are committed to improving opportunities for adults and to ensuring that they are placed in the kind of jobs that they have the potential to take up and pursue in a fulfilling way.
"Until now the Careers Service has had a rather limited role in adult guidance because it has been so focused on young people, but in future, as a result of the ConneXions service--by which that part of the careers service's work will be taken on by a new organisation--we hope that there will be a great improvement in the availability of really good careers advice, information and guidance to adults who are either seeking a job or are dissatisfied with their present job and want advice on how to improve their position. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for setting out the views of the Careers Service National Association on this issue. They sound extremely sensible.
"Perhaps I may return to the more specific question about "and" and "or". In my letter to my noble friend I said that if we have on the face of the Bill "and guidance" the LSC would only be able to provide funds in circumstances where an organisation was providing all three elements of information, advice and guidance to individuals. It could not provide funds simply for, say, the promotion of information about education and that would cut out from local partnerships those many small community and voluntary organisations that may not be able to deliver in depth guidance but have an important role in reaching out to hard-to-help groups. I am sure that all those who have spoken would want us to be able to help such groups. So, in fact, "or" is an improvement on "and", but I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that it is not the same. It is an improvement for the purposes which all of us who have spoken in the debate want to pursue. I hope that that clarifies the issues that have been raised.
(…)
Baroness Blatch: "I am grateful for that, but I wish to press the noble Baroness a little more. Will those who presently offer careers advice, information and guidance be the same people? Will they have a new remit or will they be given the remit under the ConneXions and under the new arrangements for advice, information and guidance to young people? Are we talking about the same professionals in the system now, who will be secure under the new arrangements? I had a sneaking suspicion that other people would be employed. I should be interested to know what will be the relationship between, for example, the personal advisers who will be newly trained and newly recruited into the service and the existing careers advisers in the system.
Baroness Blackstone: "We need to distinguish here between the ConneXions service, which is about providing a whole range of personal advice for young people, and the provision for adults that we are discussing in this group of amendments. The Government are funding a new £54 million programme for adult advice and guidance. The LSC will be the agency funding that guidance. Local adult information, advice and guidance partnerships will be closely linked to the local learning partnerships. But the people who are currently involved in providing that adult advice and guidance will continue to do so under the new arrangements. I hope that that clarifies the position.
(…)
"… we have to distinguish here between provision made for young people and provision made for others. The Careers Service makes most of its provision for young people. They will be subsumed under the new ConneXions service. But those careers advisers who are working in adult guidance will continue to operate in adult guidance, funded by the Government through the LSC. The same people who have been providing this information, advice and guidance will continue to operate as such.
(Further consideration of the role of the Careers service in guidance provision occurred during the lengthy and (and it must be said, confused) debate on "Connexions" on February 17th.) This is not included here.)
This matter was raised in Amendment 244 (referring to Clause 112) on the final day of the Committee, reported in Hansard, 17th February 2000, columns 1418 - 1419.
In proposing the Amendment, Baroness Sharp made it clear that she was concerned with adult education institutions such as Ruskin College, Working Men’s College and the WEA.
"Amendment No. 244 is a minor, probing amendment. Clause 112 relates to designated institutions in the further education sector, of which there are a number, such as the Working Men's College, of which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is a governor. I refer also to a number of the residential colleges, the WEA, and so forth, who are a little uncertain as to their future under the new arrangements of the learning and skills council. They seek an assurance that the essential character of the institutions will be preserved under the new arrangements. I hope that the Minister will be able to give such an assurance. I beg to move."
The brief supplied for Baroness Blackstone’s response surmised, quite wrongly, that the Amendment resulted from a concern about the incorporation of the governing bodies of voluntary-aided sixth form colleges. No mention was made in the reply of adult colleges and institutions, many of which have Peers on their governing bodies.
"Section 28 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 designated, as eligible to receive support from the FEFC, voluntary aided sixth-form colleges, institutions (other than schools) assisted by the LEA, and grant aided institutions. It did not permit the incorporation of the governing bodies of these institutions. We have received representations from a number of those concerned with this special group of sixth-form colleges. In these provisions we address their main concerns and are pleased to respond to their requests.
The Secretary of State will be able to incorporate the governing bodies of existing designated sixth-form colleges or those that may be designated in the future. It will also allow the Secretary of State, when incorporating a governing body, to specify the corporation's powers and to confer exempt charitable status upon the corporation and the institution.
"The Committee may be concerned that in replacing Section 30 we threatened the protection afforded to voluntary aided schools on entering the sector. That is not the case. Indeed, we have taken care to ensure that all voluntary aided schools which enter the sector through the designation route will still be covered by the requirement on the trustees of voluntary aided sixth-form colleges to appoint a majority of governors with a view to ensuring that the established character of the institution at the time of its designation is preserved and that it is conducted in line with any trust deed relating to it. We have extended the protection to apply to institutions either specified or in a class specified by the Secretary of State that in future enter the sector through the designation route. In view of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that the amendment is unnecessary and will withdraw it.
The above response, for whatever reason, failed utterly to address the concerns expressed through a small but legitimate and constructive probing amendment.
NIACE hopes that this matter can be picked up at Report stage and that other probing amendments did not result in similarly under-prepared Ministerial briefs.