Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Let me turn to the general points that Members have made. The hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings and for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) raised the question of colleges that have not received, but have applied for, approval in principle. There are currently 79 colleges that have received approval in principle and 65 that have applied for it and have not received it. The points they make about the great amount of workand potentially of expenditure, as well as of investment of time and energythat will have gone into reaching the stage of submitting the application, which is itself a huge, thick pile of documents, are very well understood. We have been very clear in our discussions with the new
leadership of the LSC that the colleges in that position will be treated broadly in a single pool with the colleges that have already received approval in principle. All of them will be deemed to have a difficulty which the LSC, under its new leadership, needs to help them to deal with.
Several Membersthe hon. Members for Bristol, West and for Isle of Wight come to mindmentioned the £300 million of new cash that was announced in this financial year to enable us to put through some of the most urgent and high-priority cases. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight said that it glossed over the entire issueI believe that the rich phrase he used was that it was a sticking plaster on a disembowelmentwhereas the hon. Member for Bristol, West said that it was a political scorched-earth policy. Naturally, I cannot accept any of those colourful descriptions. None the less I am clear about the fact that £300 million will not solve this problem, whose magnitude is much greater. I am not attempting to gloss over the entire issue, and I do not pretend to have solved the problem or put the matter to bed with £300 million. What the £300 million will enable us to do is to put forward, this year, in decisions that will be made in a few weeks timein the early summerthe most urgent and high-priority cases across the country. That will still leave many colleges needing certainty and clarity about their future.
Mr. Hayes: Interestingly, the Minister, at last, gives us some detail about this matter, for which I am grateful. We should have been given more detail sooner, but I understand the reasons why he has not been in a position to do that; as he says, this is not at his pay grade level. Will he tell us whether those high-priority cases will be drawn from colleges that have already received agreement in principle and colleges that are at an earlier stage of development? If not, what criteria will be used?
Mr. Simon: As ever in this evenings debate, the hon. Gentleman congratulates himself on having extracted from me something that has been clear and on the record for weeks, if not months, and that I have said dozens, if not hundreds, of times. As I just said, the colleges that have received approval in principle and those that have applied for it but not necessarily received it will all be viewed in the same group when consideration is given to both the urgent and high-priority funding and the later down the line funding. It is probable that colleges that have applied earlier and secured approval in principle are more likely to be further down the road, and I would be surprised if more of them were not more urgent and high-priority immediate cases when compared with those that have yet to receive approval in principle. However, it is clear, and has been for some time, that both those categories will be eligible to be considered for the urgent and high-priority immediate funding, and to go into the second pool of cases that will go through the same process of prioritisation.
As for how those priorities were drawn up, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knowsI am loth to say this, because I know that he will intervene in any moment to rejoice at having dragged this out of me, although it has also been clear for some timethe LSC, in partnership with the Association of Colleges, set up a reference panel and, between them, they have agreed, or are in the
process of finalising within the next week or two, a set of criteria and processes that are to be open and transparent, and that I hope the whole sector can buy into, by which the prioritisations will be decided. The first criteria will be readiness, urgency and whether the case is high priority. In the second round, the same criteria will apply, but without the criterion of readiness.
Hon. Members have also mentioned the amount of money already committed in preparing bids. That is a problem for colleges and it is an issue about which college principals and corporation leaders feel worried and exposed. I am sensitive to that, and we have made it clear to the LSC that it will need to be sensitive to the difficulties in which its mismanagement of this programme has put college leaderships. It has retained an independent firm of property consultants, who are currently consulting all the affected colleges with a view to reporting back to them what level of support they could individually expect; again, that will take place within the next few weeks.
I could go on talking about these matters indefinitely, but I am conscious of the fact that other hon. Members wish to discuss this new clause and others, and that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has to follow me so this matter is by no means close to conclusion. I am sympathetic to the desires of hon. Members to have a wide-ranging debate about this matter and I have tried to address some of the main issues in the time available, but I do not think it is appropriate for me to go on talking indefinitely. I am sympathetic to the intentions of new clauses 1 and 11, but both of them are dealt with in the Bill or within existing practice and are, therefore, superfluous. On that basis, I know that the hon. Gentleman, with his customary sagacity and courtesy, will be inclined not to press the new clauses to a Division.
Mr. Hayes: The Minister has done his best to deal both with these new clauses and with the crisis that is not entirely of his making, given that he is a newcomer to his Department. He will understand why Conservative Members and, indeed, Members from across the House, are so exercised about this capital funding crisis. Joseph Conrad said that reality beats fiction out of sight, and nobody could have made this up, could they? This is stranger than fiction. The Minister first says that colleges might be allowed to go bankrupt and then says that they will not be able to do so.
Mr. Hayes: I shall give way to the Minister, although I was in the middle of my exciting peroration.
Mr. Simon: I hate to interrupt the hon. Gentlemans peroration, but I should say that I never said that colleges might be allowed to go bankruptnot on the Today programme or anywhere else.
Mr. Hayes:
What the hon. Gentleman said on the Today programme, on blogs and on Twitter is probably not worth dwelling on now because to do so would not be in his interests or those of the House. We certainly know that Sir Andrew Foster, who was asked by the
Government to look into these matters because they were so concerned about where things had got to, concluded in his report on the crisis that it had been predictable and probably avoidable. We know that 79 of the colleges that have had their capital bids frozen had already received agreement in principle and were simply awaiting agreement in detail, and we know that the £300 million that the Government have committed will not do the job.
These new clauses are as clear as crystal. They would help a Government to ensure that the circumstances in which this Government find themselves would be most unlikely to occurI shall not say impossible, because incompetence can reign regardless of law. However, law must at least be in place to mitigate the results of the sort of incompetence, miscommunication, failure to act and lack of accountability that lay at the heart of this crisis.
We propose in our amendments that the House receive reports, with properly collected information from across the country, that match the state of the college estate to the bids for capital funding. It is remarkable that the Minister says that that information is already collected. He says that the Government have all the knowledge that they need about the state of FE colleges and the level of resources they enjoy. My goodness, if they have all that information but do not match it to bids for capital funding, what sort of organisation is the Learning and Skills Council and what sort of Ministers have we had who have not held that body to account? After all, it is a Government agency and there must be some sort of line of report, even if the Minister was not himself in office at the time.
It is essential for the good of our colleges that we avoid similar crises in the future. It is essential for good governance that we have the right information, and it is certainly essential for the further education and training needs and skills that our people deserve that we have better Ministers. I wish to press new clause 1 to a Division because I want to test the Houses opinion on whether this sort of thing is excusable or whether it thinks, as I do, that it is unforgivable.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
(1) The Secretary of State shall commission a comparative study, to be conducted by a person or body he considers appropriate, of the standards of
with comparable qualifications in each of the jurisdictions of the European Union, to be completed within a period of 18 months of the coming into force of this Act.
(2) The Secretary of State shall publish the results of this study.. (Mr. Gibb.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Gibb: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 72, in clause 126, page 72, line 25, at end add
(f) the education standards objective..
Amendment 61, page 72, line 26, after to, insert
ensure that the standard of regulated qualifications is maintained and to.Amendment 74, page 72, line 30 , at end insert
(c) indicate a consistent level of ability, including over time, between comparable regulated qualifications..
Amendment 62, page 72, line 31, after to, insert
ensure that the standard of regulated assessment arrangements is maintained and to.Amendment 75, page 72, line 37, leave out and regulated assessment arrangements and insert
, regulated assessment arrangements, the consistency of educational standards over time, and in the independence and credibility of Ofqual..Government amendments 21 to 24.
Amendment 63, in clause 126, page 73, line 10, at end add
(7) Within 18 months of its establishment Ofqual shall publish a report on whether standards of qualifications have been maintained over the previous 20 years and the report shall include consideration of
Amendment 71, page 73, line 10, at end add
(7) In pursuit of the objectives in this section, Ofqual shall lay before Parliament by 1 January 2011 an assessment of the impact of introducing modular GCSEs on the maintenance of standards and public confidence in schools.
(8) In pursuit of the objectives in this section, Ofqual shall seek to ensure that over time an age cohort with similar abilities shall be awarded qualifications at a similar level of indicated attainment..
Amendment 73, page 73, line 10, at end add
(7) The education standards objective is to monitor, assess and report on the changes in educational standards and performance in England over time, including by using standardised sample testing for such purposes as Ofqual judges this to be of value..
Amendment 87, in clause 127, page 74, line 7, at end insert
provided that, in the view of Ofqual, these aspects of government policy do not undermine the objectives set out in section 126..Next Section | Index | Home Page |