Clause
60
Performance
assessments
Mr.
Hayes: 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: 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. Mr.
Hayes: 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: 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?
Mr.
Hayes: 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. 9.15
pm
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.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 60
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
61Means
tests
Mr.
Laws: I beg to move amendment 142, in clause 61,
page 40, line 22, at end add
‘but it may not make bonus
payments under section 58(4)(a) which relate to attendance, academic
performance or completion of course
work.’. The
amendment is designed as a helpful probing amendment. I shall speak
briefly. It invites the Government to withdraw any powers there might
for the Young People’s Learning Agency to make bonus payments
under the existing educational maintenance allowance or any other
financial provision that the Government see fit to introduce. If the
Government were to accept the amendment, they would be able to free up
the £100 million or so that is used each year to make
bonus payments. That money could be used instead to close the
long-standing gap between funding those youngsters aged 16 and 17 who
go to college and those who attend school.
I look
forward to hearing what the Minister has to say; I hope that he will
accept the amendment.
Jim
Knight: We heard a good explanation of what the amendment
would do. Bonus payments are an important element of the educational
maintenance allowance scheme, which provides a financial incentive to
help young people from lower income households to participate in
post-16 educational training. EMA has been shown to have a significant
and positive impact on participation and attainment, particularly among
the more disadvantaged groups. That is something of which we are
proud.
When EMA
pilots were introduced, participation in full-time education increased
significantly for 16 and 17-year-olds, following a decade of little or
no increase. Those increases have been sustained since the national
roll-out. More recent analysis found that EMA increased attainment at
levels 2 and 3 by about 2 per cent. for male learners and about 2.5 per
cent. for female learners.
EMA is a
something-for-something scheme. To receive EMA, a young person must
sign a contract with their learning provider, setting out what is
expected of them if they are to earn weekly payments and bonuses. In
September 2008, we amended the criteria for EMA weekly payments and
bonuses to include not only attendance but behaviour, achievement and
effort.
Learning
providers have welcomed that change. It strengthens the
something-for-something aspect of the scheme. By providing a further
incentive for learners to
fulfil the expected standards of behaviour set out by the learning
provider, and getting them to put effort into the course, we are
encouraging attainment and progression among young people from less
well-off backgrounds. Jim
Knight: I therefore believe that bonuses are an important,
integral part of EMA. I shall indulge the hon. Gentleman and give way
yet again.
Mr.
Laws: The Minister is being his usual generous self. I did
not hear anything in his speech indicating that the Government have
measured the effectiveness of the EMA bonuses, rather than the
underlying EMA, which is what the amendment is
about.
Jim
Knight: We believe that the bonus system is working well;
as I said, it provides a significant improvement in participation and
attainment. We do not have independent quantitative evidence about the
impact of bonuses. We will consider it in our review of financial
support for young people that we announced in the White Paper on social
mobility, which was published at the beginning of the year. Anecdotal
evidence from providers, particularly those offering the entry to
employment programmes or provision targeted at harder-to-help groups
has stressed their importance for attention and for maintaining
motivation of learning. That is why, at this stage, I would not want to
remove the possibility of continuing with
bonuses.
Mr.
Laws: In contrast to the impression that the Minister gave
at the start of his answer, it sounds as if the EMA bonuses are rather
evidence-free parts of the financial support system for students.
Bonuses also lead to a great degree of bitterness among students who do
not receive an EMA; they find it difficult to understand the fairness
of other young people on their courses being rewarded and taking it for
granted. After all, such bonuses are paid on top of payments that are
already being made for the primary purpose of supporting young people
from lower-income backgrounds to remain in education and
training.
I am
disappointed at the Minister’s refusal to accept the amendment,
particularly as the Government do not seem to have a strategy for
closing the gap in funding for young people in schools and colleges.
The Secretary of State’s predecessor made that commitment a long
time ago, but it is yet to be delivered. I fear that I will not
persuade the Minister, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause
61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
62 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
63Securing
provision of education and
training
Mr.
Hayes: I beg to move amendment 236, in clause 63,
page 41, line 5, leave out subsections (a)
and (b) and insert ‘only
where no alternative provision is available from external
providers.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Government amendment
312. Amendment
237, in
clause 64, page 41, line 16, leave
out subsections (2) to (5) and
insert— ‘(2) The YPLA may
withdraw funding from the provider and secure the provision of
financial resources to other persons providing or proposing to provide
suitable education or training to persons in sections 58(a)(i) and
58(a)(ii).’.
Mr.
Hayes: The clause that the amendment seeks to alter
enables the YPLA to secure provision of education in particular
circumstances; it may, for instance, secure provision while
sub-regional groups of LEAs are being established. The amendment would
constrain the YPLA, because we believe that it should be a funding body
rather than one that plans and secures provision. We want to encourage
providers to meet need, so the amendment essentially means that
provision would be organised by the YPLA, but only where there are no
external or underperforming providers. The amendment therefore seeks to
limit the extension of the YPLA’s
competence. Amendment
237 attempts to remove intervention rights from the YPLA and ensure
that it redirects funding to other providers instead. Its objective is
not to inhibit provision, but to direct from where it emanates. We are
interested to hear the Minister’s perception of what the limits
on the YPLA’s powers will be in that
regard.
Jim
Knight: Government amendment 312 is consequent to the new
local authority duties in relation to young offenders and will extend
the YPLA’s powers to enable it to secure the provision of
education and training for children who are subject to youth
detention. On
amendment 236, clause 63 provides a critical element of support to the
system. In those, it is hoped, rare circumstances, which the hon.
Member for Yeovil discussed earlier, where a local authority is
failing, or likely to fail, to fulfil its duty to commission suitable
education or training, or where sub-regional groups of local
authorities are not ready to take on that role, the YPLA will have the
power to ensure that the education and training required to secure the
outcomes for our young people is effectively commissioned. As the YPLA
will not itself be a training provider, all providers will be external
to it, so the amendment is problematic in that it would create a
situation where the YPLA could never intervene in that
way. On
amendment 237, intervention in the context of the YPLA’s powers
under clause 64 means stepping in and supporting a local
authority to develop a commissioning plan, ideally before any financial
resources are transferred. In essence, such support would be a
back-office function and would not affect the business planning of a
local post-16 provider. Our whole direction here is to give as much
decision making and accountability as possible to local areas,
supported by the
YPLA. The
effect of amendment 237 would be that when the YPLA felt the need to
intervene in that way, it would only be able to withdraw funding from
one provider and direct it to a different one, which seems a
clumsy response. When a local authority is failing in its duty to
secure suitable education or training opportunities for young people,
that will become apparent through its commissioning plan for the coming
year and not through the performance of an individual
provider.
Through clause 64, we want to ensure that we retain the ability for a
suitable education place for our young people to be commissioned, and
that the YPLA can then ensure that the local authority tackles the
capability issues in its commissioning process. A further safeguard is
that the YPLA must consult the Secretary of State on the use of the
provisions, so there should be no hiding place for local authorities.
Local authorities have the duty and they have accountability to their
local communities. They will also have the resources through the YPLA,
but we do not want to see the YPLA, which will be a national body,
overriding that accountability. Yes, it will support it; yes, it will
challenge it; but no, it will not replace it altogether. I hope that,
by reason of all that clarity, the hon. Gentleman will not press the
amendments. | 
