John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment 135, in clause 60, page 40, line 16, at end add—

‘(3) The YPLA must consult with the following when adopting or developing schemes as set out in subsection (1)—

(a) the Chief Executive of Skills Funding,

(b) a local education authority in England, and

(c) Ofsted.’.

The Association of Colleges is concerned that further education colleges will have to respond to at least two funding bodies: their local authority and the SFA. It is vital that those agencies and the new Young People’s Learning Agency have a default position of sharing information to ensure that colleges do not spend even more time dealing with bureaucratic burdens and can concentrate their efforts on teaching students.

Both the YPLA, under clause 60, and the SFA, under clause 99, can carry out performance assessments on colleges and use those assessments when making funding decisions. It is particularly important that the assessments are carried out in a co-ordinated and coherent way in order to avoid duplication of the agencies’ work with that of any other funding or inspection bodies. Given how clearly the evidence in the Committee sessions highlighted that the proposed system is likely to be loaded with red tape and bureaucracy, surely the Minister will see the wisdom of the amendment.

Neither the nature of the financial relationship between local councils and colleges nor audit arrangements are included in the legislation. We would welcome clarification of whether local authorities, the YPLA and the SFA will each be able to audit colleges and whether the audits will be co-ordinated. Will they be arranged chronologically? Will they overlap? What kind of shared endeavour will occur in that regard? With those few words, I will be delighted to hear what the Minister has to say.

Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)

We certainly agree that in many circumstances, the YPLA will want to consult as proposed in the amendment and draw on existing practice. A number of bodies are already tasked with assessing the performance of providers, of which Ofsted is the major one, and local authorities are already scrutinised by the Audit Commission, among others.

In other areas, the YPLA might need to develop additional systems to enable it to do its job. It will need to performance manage directly when commissioning directly, and, in the unusual circumstances that we have been discussing, it can take provider quality into account when assessing a local authority’s commissioning plans. It will be able to adopt and develop schemes for performance assessment to support a local authority’s performance management functions. It will, of course, work with the SFA to develop a common assessment framework to provide consistency for providers. By and large, of course, the performance management of colleges will be carried out by the SFA and that of schools and sixth form colleges by the local authority.

I have set out some examples of when the YPLA will want an assessment framework, and I have said already that a national commissioning framework will set out  the common framework, for example in respect of a framework for excellence. We are looking to simplify audit arrangements to ensure that no extra burdens are put in place and to avoid duplication. Obviously, we expect the YPLA to consult the most appropriate bodies, and we have levers to ensure that the consultation will take place. On the basis of those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will feel free to withdraw his amendment.

John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

The Government’s argument in favour of this convoluted structure and rather clumsy organisational arrangement is that it reflects clumsy thinking. There is no use saying, “We think clumsily about such matters, so we have had to construct a system to match our own failures and faults.” The arrangement is evidence that, rather than reducing the number of bodies with which colleges have to deal, the Government are likely to retain or grow the existing number. In 2005, Andrew Foster, whose report I have mentioned once or twice, identified 17 bodies with which colleges are obliged to deal in respect of inspection, funding, monitoring, planning, and improvement or standard setting. Will the Minister tell us which of those bodies further education colleges no longer have to deal with, or will not have to deal with, as a result of the Bill? What extra bodies will they have to deal with? According to my calculations, FE colleges will have to deal with at least 17, possibly 18, bodies, as a result of this legislation, which directly contradicts Andrew Foster’s call for a slimming down of the structure, a reduction in bureaucracy and a clearing up of what seems to me to be a bit of a mess.

Jim Knight (Minister of State (Schools and Learners), Department for Children, Schools and Families; South Dorset, Labour)

I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s Andrew Foster speech several times. Will he respond to any of my points? I know that he is a legendary multi-tasker, and I am sure that he was capable, in the middle of the conversation that he was having with the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, of listening to every word that I said. Will he respond to anything that I did say?

John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland & The Deepings, Conservative)

It is not my job to respond to my own amendment, as the Minister will understand. I have tabled the amendment, and it is his job to respond to that. I made it fairly clear that the amendment was tabled after consultation with the Association of Colleges. He made it clear in his response that he thought that in some circumstances the YPLA would still have to audit or inspect colleges. He also said that he anticipated that that would not be a routine matter; he claimed that my assertion that there would be a confusion of auditing and inspecting was unfounded. None the less, the Government have done nothing to strip down the multitude of bodies that inhibit the performance of further education, because they force the professionals running our colleges to spend an immense amount of time and energy dealing with red tape and paperwork. That is not my analysis. It is the analysis of Andrew Foster, who was commissioned by the Government. He said that the Government should do something, and the Bill is the sorry result.

The Minister spoke about the Royal Ballet school, which Billy Elliot attended, but I am more interested in T.S. Eliot, who asked where was the wisdom lost in  information. If that eminent gentleman had had the misfortune to serve on the Committee, he might have said, “Where is the wisdom lost in the bureaucracy faced by the Committee in scrutinising and ultimately passing the Bill on to the next stage?”

I shall withdraw the amendment for the sake of brevity, but I am not satisfied with the Government’s position—and neither, I suspect, will colleges up and down the country. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.