Clause 58
8:00 pm
John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I rise conscious of the fact that we are anxious to make progress. We do not want to miss our supper by going on too long. We have had dinner, as the Minister reminded us, but there is time to squeeze in at least one more occasion to wine and dine. With that ambition in mind, I shall try to speak to the amendments as a whole.
The amendments are designed to ensure that the YPLA operates under guidance
“from the Chief Executive of the Skills Funding Agency”.
The amendments are probing, to ascertain why the YPLA funding duties for 16 to 19 education cannot be overseen by the Skills Funding Agency, a body that it is anticipated will deal with 19-plus skills-based education, further education and apprenticeships.
Many witnesses in the evidence sessions of the Committee pointed out that the transition was likely to be long, arduous and costly, and that the resulting structure might not be fit for purpose in any case. The amendment proposes a more streamlined structure, in which the SFA oversees the work of the YPLA, delivering a more coherent line of responsibility and accountability, and easier translation of funding goals. The weakness of the proposed system is that it has three delivery agencies where just one would do. The amendment seeks to do the best that it can to tie the agencies together in terms of their performance and accountability, in an attempt to minimise the impact of the proposed organisational changes and, instead, concentrate on what is good about the existing system.
As Elizabeth Reid of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust highlighted when questioned about the potential dissolution of the YPLA:
“From a number of points of view, I might not be too relaxed about that. The whole history of planning and providing for the education of 16 to 19-year-olds is quite vexed. Over the last three or four decades, there have been many difficulties.”——[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 48, Q123.]
The amendment is designed to minimise those difficulties and ensure that the system runs smoothly for providers, employers and learners. From what they said in Committee, all of them would have sympathy with such an amendment.
Daniel Moynihan from the Harris Federation said:
“A national body that is accountable to the DCSF—a single unit such as the YPLA—will be a high-quality, high-profile body that provides strong accountability, without variation. We are more likely to get that strong accountability and rigour from an organisation such as the YPLA than we are from myriad local authorities.”——[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 49, Q127.]
John Lucas of the British Chamber of Commerce said:
“We are very uncomfortable with the state of play of the reform, particularly with the dissolution of the Learning and Skills Council and the introduction of the Skills Funding Agency. We believe that the changes are too bureaucratic and do not address the underlying issues and problems of the education system.”——[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 5, Q1.]
As I have said, these are probing amendments designed to test the Government both on why they have not proposed a more efficient and streamlined structure and whether, given the force of argument in this Committee and the opportunity to consider these matters more carefully after a good dinner, they might be minded—even at the 11th hour—to change their mind, listen to the experts and do the right thing.