Dawn
Primarolo: I thank hon. Members who have participated in
this debate for their questions. I will attempt to answer all of them,
but given that there were
quite a few, I assure the Committee that I will scrutinise the record
afterwards. Should I find that I have not answered any questions, I
will of course write to Committee members. Before I go on to the more
detailed mechanism and points about how the bursary will run, I will
deal with the principle, which I think runs through many of the
questions on expectations of the bursary, of why it is set at
£2,000 and its
review. The
hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is absolutely right and each
Member who spoke echoed his point: the scale of the challenge for the
Government and local authorities to ensure that young people in care
receive the support and encouragement that enables them to go on to
further or higher education is substantial. As the hon. Gentleman will
know, the measure is part of a package that seeks to address the
question that he and others raised about further and higher education.
The figure of £2,000 was settled on to close the disadvantage
gap so that care leavers do not graduate with more debt than their
peers would. We were told by care leavers in the consultation that that
will provide an incentive for them, but it is not the whole
answer.
The hon.
Member for Yeovil asked about the Government’s expectation. Our
expectation is that a range of steps will be taken around the Care
Matters programme: for instance, the unprecedented focus on requiring
every mainstream school to appoint a designated teacher to promote the
educational achievements of the virtual school head in 11 local
authorities; the championing of educational attainment of looked-after
children of all ages; and ensuring the support to address the wider
questions.
The hon.
Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is right to highlight the good
practice in Ealing, which is an exceptional example, and not just for
higher education. I agree that that needs to be considered. In all the
arrangements that we are making within the Care Matters
programme—raising the attainment levels and support for children
and young people—how can we make sure that best practice is
shared and replicated? There will be a combination of duties—the
presence of a bursary and the specific piloting—and all local
authorities are expected to roll out the personal tuition and good
practice that we will see as we progress the pilots. The regulation
will close the clearly identified disadvantage gap in relation to
finance for debts when a young person has completed a university or
equivalent qualification.
Mr.
Laws: The Minister indicated a moment ago that the purpose
of the regulations is to bridge the gap between the amount of debt that
children in care leave higher education with and that of “their
peers”. Will the Minister clarify that phrase? Does it refer to
the average of other young people in higher education, or does it
relate to youngsters from other disadvantaged
backgrounds?
Dawn
Primarolo: It refers to their peers in higher education. I
thought that that was clear. I know that the hon. Gentleman always
looks for a Machiavellian plot, but the idea that the Government would
put something in place to help young people and then use a different
measure to devalue that does not bear thinking
about.
Dawn
Primarolo: Perhaps I can deal with uprating. Uprating will
be dealt with in a statutory instrument. It
will be kept under review and altered on that basis. That is how the
Government have decided to proceed. We will consider that position
through the annual ministerial stocktake, and ensure that those
arrangements are kept under review using information from local
authorities and their
networks.
Mr.
Laws: The Minister was being a little unfair to me, and I
want to ask whether she understands my point. If the Government succeed
in closing the gap between children in care and the rest of the
population when leaving higher education, there will presumably still
be a gap between the debt experience of youngsters coming from poorer
backgrounds but not actually in care, and that of their peers as a
group. I am trying to test out the thinking behind closing one gap in
debt experience in higher education, but not
others.
Dawn
Primarolo: I think that I made the matter clear to the
hon. Gentleman, as do the regulations and the explanatory memorandum
and as did the debate on the provisions now in the Act. This is a
specific proposition that deals with the disadvantages that affect this
group of young people, and the regulations are designed on that basis.
The purpose is to close the disadvantage gap specifically identified in
the research of Professor Sonia Jackson, and to explain the
position.
The hon.
Member for Yeovil was a little more insistent than the hon. Member for
East Worthing and Shoreham, although the hon. Member for East Worthing
and Shoreham said that he did not particularly like the idea of
targets. I was asked what the requirement was and what we were
expecting, and I think that I have now explained that. I am not
overstating the case, and I do not wish to suggest to the Committee
that the provision does anything more than remove the disadvantage that
has been identified by young people
themselves.
Mr.
Laws: Will the Minister give
way?
Dawn
Primarolo: I will make a little progress and then I will
give way. There were a series of questions about payment, such as when
it would be considered and how the local authority would decide when it
should be made. Payment must be made in accordance with the pathway
plan, and no decision could be taken without taking the views of the
young person into account, and those of the personal adviser for the
young person, who will guide and advise them on budgeting.
A question was
also asked about how long a care leaver would have to have been in care
to qualify for the bursary. I am told that the period would be 13
weeks, which must end after their 16th birthday.
The hon.
Member for East Worthing and Shoreham asked about notification of
eligibility. That would need to be done through the local authority
care service and the personal adviser that each leaver is required to
have. He also asked how the entitlement would be dealt with. It would
be dealt with by the leaver’s personal adviser. The local
authority must keep in touch with all care leavers and maintain their
pathway plan, and appoint a personal adviser for as long as the young
person is in education or training.
Tim
Loughton: Before the Minister leaves the subject of that
qualification—it is news to me that there will be a 13-week
qualifying period, as it were—does that not
provide a perverse disincentive? A local authority could decide not to
take a child into care if they are likely to go to university, because
if the authority left it a little bit longer, it would not be liable to
pay the bursary.
Dawn
Primarolo: I do not think that a local authority that
takes a young person into care would have at the forefront of its mind
whether it would have to pay a bursary, for which it is in any case
funded by Government. I do not think that that would be a driving
requirement, but if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will write to
him specifically on that point. It is an important issue, but I cannot
imagine on what basis a local authority would want to do
that.
Tim
Loughton: It is a detailed point, but I have another
example that the Minister could take on board. The specific question is
this: will the bursaries apply to children who are the subject of
special guardianship orders? I am sure the answer to that question will
be no, but I mention that in relation to my previous question for this
reason: a child could be taken out of care and put on a special
guardianship order, when they or their foster carers would therefore
not qualify for certain support mechanisms. There is a perverse
incentive financially for an authority to get a child to go from a
foster carer to a special guardianship order. Clearly, such a child
could need this sort of help, and a special guardian may not be able to
provide it. There is therefore a case for special guardianship order
children being subject to the bursaries. Will the Minister consider
that?
Dawn
Primarolo: I think that the hon. Gentleman will
find—I will look at what he said carefully in replying to
him—that young people who are the subject of guardianship would
be outside the definition of “looked-after”. Therefore,
they would not be covered by the regulations, which do not provide for
such a situation at present.
On the hon.
Gentleman’s point about the possibility of a perverse
disincentive for local authorities, I will write to him. I think he
will find that the care regulations would ensure specific requirements.
I still do not believe that the disincentive that he has identified is
a real one, but I shall certainly consider the matter and write to him
and other members of the Committee about
that. The
hon. Gentleman also asked about young people attending higher education
courses overseas. They are not covered by the definition of the higher
education requirements, which apply only to UK institutions, but the
Department will be issuing guidance to local authorities to provide
support on a similar basis to students attending institutions not
covered by the bursary, as such. There are some examples of that. If he
has some specific examples that he wishes either to put on the record
now or to write to me about, I shall certainly explain what the
guidance seeks to
do.
Tim
Loughton: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, but if a
child in care has done well enough to be admitted to the university of
Cambridge, for example, and will qualify for a £2,000 bursary,
is it not fair that an equivalent child who has been lucky enough to be
admitted to the university of Yale on an equivalent
course, and whose debts may be well in excess of the £2,000
differential to be wrapped up, should equally qualify for the
bursary?
Dawn
Primarolo: The issue would relate to the definitions of
higher education.
Tim
Loughton: Well, both of those are
universities.
Dawn
Primarolo: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will
write to him about the matter.
Tim
Loughton: I wanted a
view.
Dawn
Primarolo: I have explained to the hon. Gentleman that
guidance will be provided to local authorities to show where there
should be symmetry in the provisions with other arrangements. With
respect, we are discussing an issue with regard to the regulations and,
before we go on the highways and byways of individual views of members
of the
Committee—
Tim
Loughton: Including the view of the right hon.
Lady.
Dawn
Primarolo: I know that the hon. Gentleman is warming to
his theme, but he will also know that the Government made it clear that
they wished to stay within the definition of higher education in
existing student regulations and support to ensure simplicity. I was
not present, but the matter was discussed when the relevant Bill was
debated. It seems reasonable to make sure that that position
continues. The
hon. Gentleman’s final question was about what would happen in
respect of non-completion of the course, if the bursary had been paid.
If the bursary had been paid in instalments, clearly they will stop. If
it had been paid as a lump sum up front, that will be a matter for
consideration with the local authority, with it looking at what would
be appropriate action, given the particular
circumstances that apply to that young person and whether there should
be a requirement to pay back any of the money that had been advanced as
a lump sum. The modest
regulations, which are none the less in an important area, link in with
the requirements and the steps that the Government are taking to help
that particular group of young
people.
Mr.
Laws: Will the Minister give
way?
Dawn
Primarolo: I shall not complete my remarks without giving
way to the hon.
Gentleman. In
looking at this important area, members of the Committee will
appreciate that there is still a long way to go. As I said in my
opening remarks, I will scrutinise the record subsequently. If there
are questions that I have not properly answered or have not
answered, I shall, of course, write to members of the Committee about
them. On cue, I am happy to give way to the hon.
Gentleman.
Mr.
Laws: I am grateful to the Minister. For a minute, I
thought that she was about to finish off without taking my
intervention. I look forward to her
letter. Although
I appreciate that the right hon. Lady touched on the matter, she moved
off it fairly rapidly. Is it the expectation of the Government that, as
a result of the bursary, there will be an increase in the participation
rate and that it will be over and above the present trend?
Dawn
Primarolo: The Government hope and expect to see an
improvement under all the measures, including the bursary, to achieve
the objective of all members of the Committee that more young people
who have been in care are able to access all levels of qualification,
including university or equivalent
qualifications. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Children Act 1989
(Higher Education Bursary) (England) Regulations
2009. 5.31
pm Committee
rose.
| 
