Q
77Mr.
Laws: I will ask one question of you all and, so as not to
get into trouble with the Chairman, I will ask you to be brief with
your replies. What do you most dislike in the Bill and what would you
most like to be amended by us? Feel free to be as critical as you
like.
Jim
Knight: Say anything you
like. Ruth
Serwotka: We have concerns about different elements
of the Bill. I have been in correspondence with Jim and Siôn
about schedule 7 which, as a trade union, is our No. 1 concern. It
would legislate for the transfer of LSC staff into other organisations.
Our advice is that the schedule has either been badly drafted or, for
whatever reason, removes certain employment rights, which is clearly
something that we are concerned
about. David
Igoe: In our submission, sixth-form colleges are
broadly supportive of the new arrangements because we think that there
is more coherence in having local authorities, which are primarily
responsible for the strategic direction of schools, also having major
responsibility for the strategic direction of colleges. We share
concerns about losing our independence because we think one reason for
the success of sixth-form colleges is that they have been able to
direct their own progress in a way that is now well documented. It is
the old adage of the devil is in the detail.
We are
particularly concerned about the performance management arrangements.
We are not convinced that Framework for Excellence is, at the moment,
an instrument that is particularly fit for purpose in helping
commissioners—the local authority—to make judgments about
the institutions that they have to fund. There has to be an awful lot
more work on that.
Notwithstanding
that, there is a lot here that will make sense of the 14-to-19
landscape in this country, and we welcome that coming together as
envisaged in the
Bill. Julian
Gravatt: Clause 43 replaces a clause that has not
been used since 1992 because it was not necessary due to disability
discrimination legislation, and we therefore feel that it has the
potential to be misused. This is the clause that allows the local
authority to name an individual and require the governing body to admit
them. It is not necessary, and we have explained why in our
evidence. Ann
Robinson: We broadly welcome the moves for sixth-form
colleges in the same way that the Sixth Form Colleges Forum does. I
would cite, and hope to have an opportunity later to expand on, some of
the possible unintended consequences of the move of sixth-form colleges
to a greater homeland with local authorities. There are possible
dangers among the
opportunities. Alan
Tuckett: Our principal feeling about the Bill is
frustration at a missed opportunity. As with the split into the two
Departments, it works well in terms of coherence for children, but it
moves the incoherence to
elsewhere in the system, for adults. My serious concern about the Bill
is that the recession has made a significant difference to the
employment focus and the employment-driven nature of Government
investment post-19, and very large numbers of people will not be able
to benefit directly from that. At the same time, with an ageing
demographic very large numbers of people will be managing significant
periods of their life beyond the conventional labour market, whether
they are working or
not. Since
we are revisiting the division between rights and obligations in
relation to young people and adults, this seems like a missed
opportunity to take a fresh look at that and provide a redefinition. In
that context, the timing of the separation of the LSC into two agencies
at a national level compounds the challenge to be responsive enough to
rapidly changing external economic and social circumstances. So, our
concern is that coherence for 14-to-19-years-olds might be bought in
terms of loss of coherence and opportunity for adults. There are things
that we like in the Bill, but that is our main
concern. Graham
Moore: The most worrying issue is how the Skills
Funding Agency has been established. The Young People’s Learning
Agency and the Higher Education Funding Council are two relatively slim
organisations, and we have this very large SFA, which is broadly
transferring more staff than are actually employed by the LSC. So, it
will be a big, chunky structure. It will not be the slimline funding
agency that we were originally promised. It seems that it will perhaps
have all the disadvantages that the big, bureaucratic LSC has brought
to the scene, and I would like a serious rethink
there. If
it is going to be an interventionist structure—and it looks like
one—I do not think it appropriate that it is run from within the
Department. If it is going to operate, I would be happier to see it
with a board, being accountable to the sector and the providers. So,
the structure of the SFA is a missed opportunity, and I would like to
see much more power and action at local level, between local
authorities, providers, employers groups and so on, which is where the
difference has to be
made. Ruth
Serwotka: I want to come back on a couple of points
that have been raised on the size of the Learning and Skills Council
and on whether this is a missed opportunity to make people redundant
and so on. The LSC is actually a very slimline organisation. Its
running costs—its admin budget against its turnover—are
very low compared with those of similar organisations. The idea that
the new agencies could be run with fewer staff than the LSC is
unrealistic.
Q
78Mr.
Laws: Do you think that it will take more
staff? Ruth
Serwotka: The full-time posts are replicated in the
new structures and that is the right approach in the current
circumstances. As Ann said, we have an economic crisis on our hands,
and the SFA and the YPLA need to be organisations that can respond
rapidly to redundancies and the like. This is not the time to cut
people who have skills and an understanding of the types of
interventions that are
needed.
The
Chairman: Which of the two Ministers wants to
speak?
Jim
Knight: I shall of course give way to
Siôn.
Q
79Mr.
Simon: I will carry on questioning Ruth. On the adult
side, there will be new structures and the same number of people will
be dealing with several things that the LSC does not deal with such as
the National Apprenticeship Service, the expansion of Train to Gain,
the Adult Advancement and Careers Service and the skills accounts. Do
you agree therefore that the administrative, regulatory and
prescriptive side of what the LSC does will effectively be slimmed down
and streamlined because the headcount will be the
same? Ruth
Serwotka: I agree that the new organisation will take
on new work. The LSC is taking on new work within its current
headcount, while it has a 17 per cent. vacancy rate. Before you think
about losing staff, you have to think about setting up the National
Apprenticeship Service, which will be established using the staff of
the LSC. You either jeopardise that service, or you have to run it
within the current headcount. I agree that it is important to ensure
that the staff who have the skills for the current system are retained
for the future. There have been discussions about the importance of
that between Siôn and Jim and the PCS and within the
LSC. If
I may say so Siôn, we are concerned about the locations of the
SFA. We have been told that there will be between 18 and 24 locations.
I do not know if the Committee is aware that the LSC has 47 locations,
which allows for partnership working and relationship management with
local authorities. Those important relationships could easily be lost
in the new structures. Given the economic climate, it is important for
the Ministers and the Committee to consider whether the locations of
the SFA should be increased, especially when there is a possibility of
offices sitting vacant with no staff. We could have local, flexible and
responsive staff in those
locations.
Q
80Mr.
Simon: I wanted to ask Julian something else, but does he
want to say something briefly on that
issue? Julian
Gravatt: I have to agree that the SFA will do a
different job from the LSC and that it needs to be appropriately
staffed. Our concern is that there seem to be a lot of staff,
especially when compared to the equivalent agencies in Scotland and for
higher education. We accept that those have a narrower range of duties.
Colleges will have to make redundancies this year because of changes in
demand for adult learning and the changes in Government funding. There
is a difficult climate, but this seems to us to be a missed opportunity
in the
changes.
Q
81Mr.
Simon: The previous group of witnesses said that we should
not do this now, that the current staff will not be able to cope in the
economic climate and that the strains and stresses are too much. You
are effectively saying the opposite, which is that the problem is that
we are leaving too many staff and not making the organisation slim
enough. Do you think that the truth might lie somewhere in the middle,
where we have located
it? Julian
Gravatt: This is a complicated change. It is the
biggest change in the funding and regulation of colleges for nine years
and there must be enough time to ensure that it is done properly and
that people are placed
correctly. We think that it is possible to put a change through in 2010.
We are nervous about the change across to local government, but I am
confident that the colleges will make it
work.
Q
82Mr.
Simon: There has been a ballyhoo about how complicated it
is going to be and how colleges will be unable to cope with that.
However, the new Skills Funding Agency will have a single account
management structure and a single funding conversation for colleges on
the adult side. Do your members not tell you that that is positive
compared with the multiple conversations that they currently have with
the LSC and other funding bodies, and that they look forward to
it? Julian
Gravatt: The complication comes from the split at
19.
Q
83Mr.
Simon: But on the adult
side? Julian
Gravatt: The main issue on the adult side is that the
Skills Funding Agency works in a joined-up way with the YPLA and local
authorities, so we are particularly keen that clause 119, which allows
it to share data, will actually require it to work in concert as
well.
Q
84Mr.
Simon: But is a single account structure for colleges a
positive
thing? Julian
Gravatt: Yes it is, with the proviso that it is only
for the adult area and that colleges have more of their work in the
16-to-19 area for both education and
apprenticeships.
Q
85Mr.
Simon: May I ask Graham about the single account point? We
are trying to make it
easier. Graham
Moore: There are two things to remember. A single
account is clearly a good idea; I do not think that anybody would
dispute that. It is what the account and its complexity are all about.
You have to remember that the SFA does not actually deliver anything.
The delivery has to be done through the provider network with employers
and so on, which is where you want to put most resources to ensure that
you can do the maximum to help the
nation. If
you look at the complexity behind that single voice from the SFA, you
will see that it is about its funding methodology and its rules and
regulations on what you can and cannot do. You are not actually saying,
“We want to make a difference. These are the issues in your
community, and the employers say this and the local authorities say
that.” You try to come to an agreement on how to address the
Government’s priorities in your local area, and I stress that
that is where the difference needs to be made, and not on a national
level. The strategy is quite clear and we all know what needs to be
done. You need a relatively simple, unbureaucratic system, and I am not
certain that with 1,800 people you will actually get
that.
The
Chairman: Mr. Tuckett wants to join
in. Alan
Tuckett: There will inevitably be quite a lot of
transitional traction for people who do not chronologically grow at the
rate that our legislative arrangements plan for them: adults with
learning difficulties at 26 whose needs are no different from those of
24-year-olds, for example, or young offenders aged 18 to 24, rather
than 16 to 18. The issues relating to negotiation between
young people’s funding agencies, the SFA and local authorities to
ensure that individuals do not get lost along the way seem to be as
significant as the coherence issue for institutions, since the devil is
always in the detail for post-compulsory participation,
Siôn. The
previous group that gave evidence was asked about the business-friendly
side of SFA, which I am sure is right. But the risk is that the wider
economic and social well-being and responsibility, which are very
clearly located in young people’s work, will be harder to secure
as a coherent dialogue between the different funding agencies to enable
institutions to operate in a holistic
way.
Q
86Stephen
Williams: The London Apprenticeship Company was recently
established, and the Federation of Small Businesses states that the
company has been particularly useful in helping small and medium-sized
enterprises in London to find apprenticeship places and match them up
with small employers. The AOC’s evidence seems to encourage
group training associations, which are largely the same. Do you think
that the Bill goes far enough in facilitating group training
arrangements? Julian
Gravatt: It is not necessary to legislate on every
area of activity that you want to achieve. Sometimes, the main issue is
ensuring that legislation does not have unintended consequences and
does not make it more difficult to achieve certain things. I do not
know the details of the London apprenticeship arrangements, but I
certainly know that colleges are working across the country on
arrangements with small employers to develop apprenticeships. Our
concern is about the restriction that the apprentice must be employed
at all stages. In some cases and in group arrangements with small
employers, it might cover the risks if, for example, the colleges or a
third party employed apprentices and they are placed in different
places. So our concern is to ensure that there are not unintended
consequences from how the Bill is
phrased.
Q
87Stephen
Williams: To be clear about that, the Association of
Colleges would welcome the opportunity—perhaps the 157 Group
might want to comment on this too—for colleges to be the formal
employer of an apprentice in a programme-led apprenticeship
programme.
Julian
Gravatt: Colleges already are the
formal employer of a couple of thousand apprentices and we have
plans to encourage that further, for example, through our contractors,
such as those constructing college buildings, so that they can
employ apprentices. Our concern is to ensure that the way that the Bill
is phrased and then implemented does not create an unintended
obstacle.
| 
