Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (Consequential Amendments) (England and Wales) Order 2010

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate on the merits of these statutory instruments, and I hope that I can respond to many of the questions that have been put. I shall start by responding to the noble Lord, Lord Martin. I would like to call him "my noble friend", but he sits on the Cross Benches in the tradition of former Speakers of the House of Commons. We listened with great interest to his comments about the experience of City Building in Glasgow, and on the importance of adult apprenticeships and the contribution they can make. We all appreciate the difficulties faced by those who leave school without the qualifications that they find they want later in life, and we need to respond to the real challenges posed by a globalised economy through promoting the improvement of skills in our workforce. It is important that we get it right for young people, but we must not leave behind adults who want to upskill. That is why my noble friend Lord Young is deeply committed to promoting apprenticeships across the age spectrum from initial training that is suitable for 14 year-olds right up to advanced apprenticeships. It might be helpful for us to write to the noble Lord setting out the Government’s work on apprenticeships and ensuring that the department is aware of the examples that he has helpfully explained to us. My noble friend Lord Jones also shared with us his wealth of experience and perspective, particularly in manufacturing and the contribution of Airbus and the aerospace industry. Given his expertise and experience, it is very important that we take note of his contribution. I agree with him about the importance of the contribution of Airbus UK in Bristol and in Flintshire. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, also has personal experience of its contribution. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord's remarks. I am sure that the senior vice-president, a former apprentice himself from Broughton, will also be interested to read his remarks. I would say that although the detailed impact on Wales of the statutory instruments is slight, because much of education is devolved, there are minor changes that will affect Wales. For example, in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, there will be a slight amendment in paragraphs 91 and 73 of Schedule 1. So there is an impact on Wales, but the impact of government policy—investing in skills and working with the Assembly Government—is much greater. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, asked about the cost of the changes. I offer them the reassurance that we have seen a very clear value-for-money case in setting up the arrangements. We debated this in full when we considered the Act in Committee. As we know, there will be short-term costs in reducing the premises of the estate of the LSE, currently estimated at about £36.8 million, but they are still expected to be offset by savings in the medium term. There will also be one-off costs of £3 million to standardise the terms of transfer to local authorities, and £3 million for pensions. We have talked about all that in previous debates. I reiterate that, over time, those changes are expected to generate net annual savings of £17 million from rationalisation of premises, IT, shared services and streamlined contracting and data collection processes. The new system is expected to be revenue-neutral for providers, with prudential savings through reduced bureaucracy. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked for specific assurances on the question of staff numbers. I assure her that no additional staff are being recruited, other than to fill vacancies, which we would expect, in respect of functions that are transferring from the LSE to other bodies. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, was very concerned that we do not create additional unnecessary administration. The Skills Funding Agency will work further to simplify systems—I know that the noble Lord is concerned about that—for example, for colleges and for training organisations, including through the single account management process and the approved college and training organisation register. I know that we have discussed this before, but it will work co-operatively with the YPLA and local authorities to manage the interdependencies with pre-19 learning and with the Information Authority to improve data collection and dissemination through the further education data service. There is a clear focus on streamlining. There will be a single commissioning dialogue for 14-to-19 learning. Providers currently have to engage with both the LSC and local authorities on 14-to-19 learning. In future, they will need to engage only with the lead commissioning authorities. That is a clear step forward. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, also asked about authority in the 2009 Act. The consequential amendments order is authorised by Section 265 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act. The Delegated Powers Committee would have looked at those delegations to ensure that they were appropriate. That is one reason why we are having a debate on an affirmative resolution. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, was looking for a reiteration of the assurances that we gave in Committee on the independence of sixth-form colleges. He asked whether they would maintain their autonomy. I will reassure the noble Lord. The designation of sixth-form colleges as corporations will not change their independent status. They will remain incorporated colleges run by their college corporation, not by the local authority. They will remain responsible for all issues of staffing, premises, curriculum and finance. Local authorities will commission and fund 16-to-19 provision generally, and will performance-manage sixth-form colleges. However, noble Lords know that these sixth-form colleges are very high-performing institutions. The local authority's remit will not run beyond that performance management. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, was also concerned about how Ofsted will go about inspecting children's centres. That is a matter for Ofsted. The statutory instruments are designed to ensure that the technical adjustments are made to the relevant powers so that Ofsted can make its inspections with the right regulations in place. The noble Lord is right: we want to ensure that Ofsted inspections are properly co-ordinated and that it has the appropriate expertise in place to undertake meaningful inspections. That is not something that we can achieve through legislation—Ofsted must achieve it through good management and leadership. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about the importance of co-ordination between education and children's services. That issue was behind the Children Act 2004. The question is one of leadership. The job of director of children’s services is a big one, and there are many extremely successful leaders in that role. We in the department have been particularly keen to promote the leaders of the future, and, through the National College for School Leadership, to encourage and promote the leadership skills that we want to see in key roles. With the establishment of children's trust boards and a more holistic approach to looking at the delivery of child-centred services, the requirement for people in these key positions to work together becomes even more acute. As the noble Baroness suggests, it is essential that they work together, and we are doing what we need to in order to ensure that they have the skills and leadership to do that. I thank noble Lords for taking part in this short debate. It has allowed us to look at some of the important policy issues behind the legislation. I commend this consequential and technical order to the Committee. Motion agreed.