| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
We have serious concerns about this change, to which the Minister referred. The new conditions in question are set out in paragraphs 5(1) and (2) to schedule 3. In the initial draft of the Bill, the chief executive was to be appointed by the Secretary of State. Following changes resulting from the debate in the other place, now only
the first chief executive will be appointed in that way-subsequent appointments will be made by the YPLA itself, but those will be subject to the Secretary of State's approval. I note what the Minister said on those terms.
That creates what was called in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" a "self-perpetuating autocracy". It is an extraordinary further complication of what is already a complex system. We do not support that development. Reducing the powers of the Secretary of State over appointments to the YPLA has the effect of weakening democratic accountability. It is a further criticism of the structure that is being proposed-indeed, invented-by the Bill that the lines of accountability to this place are increasingly confused. Members will be concerned that amendment 180 reduces their authority over such matters still further.
The YPLA surely should be accountable to the House via the Secretary of State. That is the least we should expect. Since the Secretary of State should have the ultimate responsibility for the performance of the YPLA, surely it is important that he has sufficient authority over it, which should include something as important as the appointment of the chief executive.
One of the most damaging consequences of the proliferation of quangos under this Government has been the understandable sense among the public that those with power over their lives are shielded from democratic accountability. Agencies are not answerable to the public. That is why Ministers should retain control over appointments to quangos-so that they can answer for quangos' actions to the public through Parliament. If that does not happen, the link between power and elected accountability is inevitably degraded.
Quangos should operate at arm's length from the Government and the Minister with responsibility for them only in a defined and limited range of circumstances, which might include politically impartial decision making, transparent determination of facts or work of a specific technical or regulatory nature. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition addressed that in a speech on 6 July and explained how a Conservative Government would approach the management of quangos, which is particularly relevant to the debate on this group of amendments. He said:
"any delegation of power by a minister to a quango will not mean a corresponding delegation of responsibility...our goal is democratic accountability, not bureaucratic accountability".
Amendment 180 takes the opposite approach and is not consistent with accountable government of the kind described by him and, actually, of the kind that is dear to the hearts of all good parliamentarians, regardless of party affiliation.
In the other place, my noble Friend Lord De Mauley put the argument persuasively when he pointed out the different constitutional bases of the YPLA and the SFA. There are real doubts about the different personalities of those two organisations and the resulting difficulties of their relationship. He said that the SFA is an agency under the aegis of the Secretary of State, whereas the YPLA is a non-departmental public body. He went on to say:
"we express our opposition to"
"government Amendments"
"would allow the YPLA the power to appoint its own chief executive, albeit subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. If the YPLA is to exist, it should be held to account in the same way"
"the SFA as an agency should be held to account. The principle of democratic accountability must hold fast"-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2009; Vol. 714, c. 89.]
Part of the confusion that is likely to be created by the Bill will result from the different mechanisms by which those bodies are answerable to the House and to Ministers.
The Government are planning an immensely complicated system and it is not, frankly, widely welcomed in the sector. When I speak to people in the sector, they tell me that they too feel that it is going to be convoluted and may be difficult to navigate. The lines of accountability are not as they should be, as I have described. As a result, the new structure is not regarded as likely to be better than the LSC, which is quite an achievement; suddenly, the LSC has friends! The LSC was rather like the red army- though big, insensitive and expensive, it was at least predictable. The new system is anything but. Actually, it is less like Soviet Russia and more like Byzantium.
I am surprised, because the Minister is a good Minister, a diligent Member of the this House, a proud member of the Government Front-Bench team, and perhaps Hartlepool Sixth Form college's finest. I am surprised that he can, in all conscience, defend this indefensible cacophony, this awful blurred picture, this Jackson Pollock, Heath Robinson, Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, Shostakovich structure. Perhaps he thinks it is better than a system that is streamlined, sensitive and responsive to need, and a system that could and would be understood by both learners and employers. I certainly do not.
Stephen Williams: Madam Deputy Speaker, you and everyone else will be relieved that I do not have any musical, theatrical, cinematic, artistic or any other analogies to make in my short remarks.
I am pleased that the Minister is so delighted by the capital investment in Hartlepool sixth-form college-he may indeed be its finest product-but that delight will not be shared by many of his Labour, let alone Opposition, colleagues, who have seen FE and sixth-form colleges in their constituencies starved of the funds they expected to receive following their capital programme bids over the past 12 months.
My only concern about this group of amendments is essentially what the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) alluded to-how long is the arm's length between the Ministry, the Minister and the quango or non-department public body? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the soon-to-be-lamented Learning and Skills Council. Whenever things are going right in the sector, Ministers are keen to crow and take the credit, but when things go wrong, it is someone else's fault. For instance, when the capital programme went wrong, it was all the fault of the poor chief executive of the LSC, but the same could happen to the chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority or any body.
I would like the same clarification as the hon. Gentleman. What is the nature of the relationship between the new chief executive of the YPLA, the Department for Children,
Schools and Families and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills? How accountable is that individual and his or her successors to this House, directly through the Minister, or through other parts of the House, such as the Public Accounts Committee? In my first two and a half years as a Member of the House, like the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), I was a member of the Education Committee, to which the head of Ofsted essentially reported. The head of Ofsted could be scrutinised directly by members of that Committee on how it was implementing policy-the Government were genuinely at arm's length. It would be good if the Minister could clarify how he sees the relationships to which I referred developing.
Mr. Iain Wright: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). It was a remarkable achievement to mention Jackson Pollock, Iron Maiden, Shostakovich, Black Sabbath and Monty Python in the space of about 30 seconds. I imagine that that feat is unequalled in the history of the House.
I was pleased with the hon. Gentleman's agreement to the amendments on clarifying the role of the YPLA and local authorities, the governance of sixth-form colleges and other matters. His comments and questions, and those of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams), were essentially about the new architecture of the machinery of government and how the YPLA will rightly be accountable to this House.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that the system for funding should be dynamic and responsive. I agree, and that is what we are moving towards. At the moment, colleges have a variety of different funding streams. If they are entrepreneurial, they will be approaching businesses in their area and providing bespoke training courses. The proposed machinery of government changes will provide much greater clarity, and that has been a constant theme throughout the Bill's passage, here and in the other place.
Local authorities will be in the driving seat, commissioning services from birth until the age of 19. They will be responsible for strategic planning, for commissioning for 16 to 19-year-olds, for sub-regional and regional working, for financial assurance and audit, and for provider performance management. The YPLA will be responsible for providing the framework, development and maintenance; for funding and allocation on a national basis; for direct commissioning and procurement; and for enabling informed commissioning to take place. Local authorities will have a strategic role in their areas, because they know what is important for their local vision in economic and social terms, and they will be in the driving seat. There will be a clear demarcation between provision up to the age of 19 and then post-19, and the Bill will provide important clarity on that point.
Providers on the ground will see significant benefits in terms of better informed and integrated commissioning of services and through streamlined performance management and data arrangements. For post-19 learners, there will be one account management system, as opposed to the current nine or 10 systems, and an automated settlement system that will pay colleges and providers in line with the choices made by learners and employers.
Learners' decisions will drive the system: money will flow from the learner, which will provide the dynamic and responsive system that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the YPLA should be accountable to the House. It will be. As I said before, I have taken legislation through the House on the appointment of other non-departmental public body chief executives-for example, the Homes and Communities Agency and the Tenants Services Authority-and this provision takes the same approach. NDPBs are accountable to the House-chief executives can be called to the relevant Select Committees and the Public Accounts Committee. The YPLA will be required to publish its annual report to the House each year and the Secretary of State will still be accountable in terms of debates and questions. The accountability line is clear and is consistent with other NDPBs.
Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the Minister for his glowing tribute.
The point is that the legal personalities of the YPLA and SFA are very different. We were told at an earlier stage of consideration that a different model had been considered. Why did the Government come to the conclusion that those two organisations should have very different legal personalities, despite the relationship between them?
Mr. Wright: Certainly with regard to the YPLA and the national funding framework that will be introduced, we thought that it would be best to have an arm's length role so that Ministers would not be accused of interfering with specific funding allocations. That degree of impartiality is important. As I have said, the YPLA will have a clear line of accountability to the House through the Secretary of State, because its representatives can be called here by Select Committees and because of the annual report requirement-
Mr. Wright: I have obviously not satisfied the hon. Gentleman yet.
Mr. Hayes: The Minister always brings immense charm to these proceedings, but he has not answered the question. We were told earlier that a different model had been considered by the Government for the legal personality of the SFA and the YPLA, and the relationship between the two. Why was this model adopted in preference to that one? Can he give me a straight answer?
6.15 pm
Mr. Wright: I think that I have answered that question. The two organisations will serve two different constituencies, for want of a better phrase. The YPLA and the SFA will do different jobs and have different functions, so we thought that it was appropriate that they should have different funding models. It makes sense for the work to be done by two organisations. The structure provides a clear, coherent focus for young people on the one hand, and for employers and adults on the other.
Stephen Williams: We have just had the experience of the penultimate chief executive of the LSC resigning in response to the capital programme fiasco. Who will require the chief executive of the YPLA to resign if something goes wrong on his or her watch?
Mr. Wright: The chief executive will be accountable to the Secretary of State, so matters of delivery and performance management will be a matter for the YPLA board and the Secretary of State. Clear lines of accountability exist and, by the same token, the Secretary of State can also answer questions on that issue in the House. We think that it is right to make a distinction between the YPLA and the SFA because they provide two different approaches for two different customers. The clarity and responsiveness will be embedded in the system. On that basis, I hope that the House will agree with the Lords amendments.
Lords amendments 35 to 42 agreed to.
The Minister for Schools and Learners (Mr. Vernon Coaker): I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 43.
Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 44 to 55, 115, 170 and 174.
Mr. Coaker: It is a pleasure to contribute, even at this late stage, to what is an important Bill, and on these important amendments. The provisions in this Bill concerning the education and training of young people in juvenile custody are an important step forward. This Bill ends the disapplication of education law to this group of young people, something which has been called for by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Furthermore, it paves the way for joining up education in juvenile custody with education in the mainstream, by giving commissioning responsibility to local authorities. This is an extremely important area, concerning the education of some of our most vulnerable young people. It is an area that many of my hon. Friends in this House, as well as colleagues in the other place, have expertise in and a passion for. It is right, therefore, that we have listened carefully during debates and amended the Bill where necessary to ensure that it delivers what we want for these young people.
The most significant change that we have made concerns literacy and numeracy assessments for offenders on their entry into youth custody in a young offender institution, a secure training centre or a secure children's home. These assessments will provide a vital mechanism for informing the learning young people receive in custody, and we are grateful to those in the other place who urged that this existing practice be reflected on the face of the Bill. Similarly, it is important that educational progress made while in custody should inform planning for the young person's resettlement. Amendment 49 places a clear duty on the host local authority to share information about the young person's education with the home authority to inform their education and training on the person's release.
Amendment 46 is a change to the new power in section 562A of the Education Act 1996 to clarify that the power cannot be used to disapply the other young offender provisions in the Bill. That was always our
intention, and again we are happy to make it explicit. Amendment 115 clarifies that the chief executive's duties in respect of persons with learning difficulties extends specifically to people in adult detention, including those aged 18 or below. Amendments 43, 50 to 55, 170 and 174 are minor and technical drafting amendments.
The amendments deal with a most important part of the Bill. We would all agree that the discussion and debate that have taken place on this section of the Bill are extremely important. The Bill has been immeasurably improved. A consequence of that will be a better educational entitlement for some of the most vulnerable young people in our society.
Mr. Hayes: It is a pleasure to face the Minister across the Dispatch Box for, I think, the first time, although we are old friends from Nottinghamshire days. He always approaches these matters with diligence and insight. I have seen off the first two Ministers to speak in this debate-the first has left the Chamber and the second wishes that he never left Hartlepool. We shall see what the third Minister can do this evening.
We tabled an amendment to introduce a reading assessment for people when they enter and leave youth detention centres. The Minister is right that those are important matters. Bluntly, this was another important victory for Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers in the Lords who united in their determination to improve the Bill. Once again, that illustrates that the Bill has improved during its passage, as the Minister generously acknowledged. The Government have moved an amendment to include an assessment of literacy and numeracy skills, and that is the amendment that we are debating today. It will be a requirement that the information from the assessment be used to determine whether young people in custody get education or training.
That is important, of course, because of the link between poor education and recidivism, which is also linked to the inability of young people to gain employment when they leave custody. Lord De Mauley welcomed the Government's
"intention to expand the requirement that the information from the assessments be used to help determine suitable"
subsequent provision. He agreed that
"if a recent assessment is available, then a further assessment should not be required."
"it remains important to have an assessment in place for when the person leaves youth accommodation, as well as when he enters it."-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2009; Vol. 714, c. 73-74.]
Lord Ramsbotham, in the other place, said that the assessment should be made available to the home authority, which would facilitate a coherent approach to education, meaning that the progress made while in detention can be carried forward thereafter.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |