Jim
Knight: I beg to move amendment 327, in schedule 3,
page 155, line 31, leave out
‘its’ and insert ‘the
ordinary’. This
amendment, with amendments 328 and 329, restricts the application of
paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to members of the YPLA other than the chief
executive. The chief executive’s pay and pension will be
determined in accordance with conditions of service set under paragraph
5(A1): see amendment
30.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments 328, 329,
332
Jim
Knight: The amendments make changes to the governance of
the YPLA. Amendments 327 to 329 restrict the application of paragraph 4
of schedule 3, which is concerned with remuneration, to members of the
YPLA other than the chief executive. Amendment 332 provides
for the YPLA to determine the conditions of service of members of
staff, other than the chief executive, with the Secretary of
State’s approval.
Mr.
Gibb: Will the Minister put on the record whether
he will disclose in the annual report the remuneration details of the
chief executive and the key members of the board of the YPLA, so that
we have complete transparency in such matters for the
public?
Jim
Knight: That degree of transparency is certainly in the
public interest. The normal accountancy rules, which have that sort of
disclosure in them, will apply. The chief executive’s pay and
pensions will be determined in accordance with conditions of service
set out in proposed new paragraph 5(A1), as shown in
amendment
330.
Mr.
Gibb: Will those details be available for the public to
scrutinise?
Jim
Knight: As a public body, I would expect there to be that
level of scrutiny. If different, I shall write to the Committee and let
it
know. Amendment
327 agreed
to. Amendments
made: 328, in schedule 3, page 155,
line 34, leave out ‘member of the YPLA’ and
insert ‘ordinary
member’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
327. 329,
in
schedule 3, page 155, line 35, leave
out ‘a member of the YPLA’ and insert ‘an ordinary
member’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
327. 330,
in
schedule 3, page 155, line 40, at
end insert— ‘(A1) The chief
executive is to be appointed by the Secretary of State, on conditions
of service determined by the Secretary of
State.’. The
effect of this amendment is that the chief executive of the YPLA will
be a member of its staff and will always be appointed by the Secretary
of State, on conditions of service determined by the Secretary of
State. 331,
in
schedule 3, page 155, line 41, after
‘appoint’ insert ‘other members
of’. This amendment is
consequent on amendment
330. 332,
in
schedule 3, page 156, line 1, leave
out sub-paragraph (2) and
insert— ‘(2) The conditions
of service of the other members of the YPLA’s staff are to be
determined by the YPLA with the approval of the Secretary of
State.’. This
amendment provides for the YPLA to determine the conditions of service
of members of staff other than the chief executive, with the Secretary
of State’s
approval. 333,
in
schedule 3, page 157, line 37, leave
out ‘the chief executive or any of the ordinary members’
and insert ‘any of the
other ordinary members or the chief executive’.—(Jim
Knight.) This amendment
is consequent on amendment
319.
Jim
Knight: I beg to move amendment 305, in
schedule 3, page 160, line 23, leave
out ‘this or any other’ and insert
‘any’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
291.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Government amendments 291, 306, 292,
307.
Jim
Knight: The amendments are minor, technical drafting
changes, which ensure consistency in all references to the Bill in
conjunction with other
Acts. Amendment
305 agreed
to. Schedule
3, as amended, agreed
to.
Clause
58Provision
of financial
resources
Mr.
Hayes: I beg to move amendment 240, in clause 58,
page 38, line 5, at beginning
insert ‘Under guidance
from the Chief Executive of the Skills Funding
Agency,’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 256, in clause 58,
page 38, leave out lines 6 to 12 and
insert— ‘(a) local education
authorities for the purposes of their functions in relation to the
education or training of
persons— (i) who are
compulsory school age but under 19,
or (ii) who are aged 19 or over
but under 25 and are subject to learning difficulty
assessment; (b) persons
providing or proposing to provide education or training for such
persons in pursuance of arrangements made by local education
authorities in the discharge of those
functions.’. Government
amendment
308. Amendment
241, in
clause 58, page 38, line 11, leave
out subsection
(b). Government
amendment
309. Amendment
122, in
clause 58, page 38, line 12, leave
out ‘such education and training’ and insert
‘subsection (a)
(i)’. Amendment
242, in
clause 58, page 38, line 15, at
beginning insert ‘Under
guidance from the Chief Executive of the Skills Funding
Agency,’. Amendment
243, in
clause 58, page 38, line 25, at
beginning insert ‘Under
guidance from the Chief Executive of the Skills Funding
Agency,’. Government
amendment
310. Amendment
244, in
clause 58, page 39, line 1, at
beginning insert ‘Under
guidance from the Chief Executive of the Skills Funding
Agency,’. Amendment
245, in
clause 58, page 39, line 7, at
beginning insert ‘Under
guidance from the Chief Executive of the Skills Funding
Agency,’. Government
amendment
311.
Mr.
Hayes: I rise conscious of the fact that we are anxious to
make progress. We do not want to miss our supper by going on too long.
We have had dinner, as the Minister reminded us, but there is time to
squeeze in at least one more occasion to wine and dine. With that
ambition in mind, I shall try to speak to the amendments as a
whole.
The amendments
are designed to ensure that the YPLA operates under
guidance “from
the Chief Executive of the Skills Funding
Agency”. The
amendments are probing, to ascertain why the YPLA funding duties for 16
to 19 education cannot be overseen by the Skills Funding Agency, a body
that it is anticipated will deal with 19-plus skills-based education,
further education and
apprenticeships. Many
witnesses in the evidence sessions of the Committee pointed out that
the transition was likely to be long, arduous and costly, and that the
resulting structure might not be fit for purpose in any case. The
amendment proposes a more streamlined structure, in which the SFA
oversees the work of the YPLA, delivering a more coherent line of
responsibility and accountability, and easier translation of funding
goals. The weakness of the proposed system is that it has three
delivery agencies where just one would do. The amendment seeks to do
the best that it can to tie the agencies together in terms of their
performance and accountability, in an attempt to minimise the impact of
the proposed organisational changes and, instead, concentrate on what
is good about the existing
system. As
Elizabeth Reid of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust
highlighted when questioned about the potential dissolution of the
YPLA: “From
a number of points of view, I might not be too relaxed about that. The
whole history of planning and providing for the education of 16 to
19-year-olds is quite vexed. Over the last three or four decades, there
have been many difficulties.”——[Official
Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill
Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 48,
Q123.] The
amendment is designed to minimise those difficulties and ensure that
the system runs smoothly for providers, employers and learners. From
what they said in Committee, all of them would have sympathy with such
an amendment.
8.15
pm Daniel
Moynihan from the Harris Federation
said: “A
national body that is accountable to the DCSF—a single unit such
as the YPLA—will be a high-quality, high-profile body that
provides strong accountability, without variation. We are more likely
to get that strong accountability and rigour from an organisation such
as the YPLA than we are from myriad local
authorities.”——[Official Report,
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee,
3 March 2009; c. 49,
Q127.] John
Lucas of the British Chamber of Commerce
said: “We
are very uncomfortable with the state of play of the reform,
particularly with the dissolution of the Learning and Skills Council
and the introduction of the Skills Funding Agency. We believe that the
changes are too bureaucratic and do not address the underlying issues
and problems of the education
system.”——[Official Report,
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee,
3 March 2009; c. 5,
Q1.] As I have
said, these are probing amendments designed to test the Government both
on why they have not proposed a more efficient and streamlined
structure and whether, given the force of argument in this Committee
and the opportunity to consider these matters more carefully after a
good dinner, they might be minded—even at the 11th
hour—to change their mind, listen to the experts and do the
right
thing.
Mr.
Laws: Not having any intention of returning to supper
having had dinner and having an amendment down in this section, I think
that I should speak to it
even though the Minister is looking slightly distressed at my
intervention, perhaps anticipating a second dinner or even a supper.
Amendment 256 seeks to clarify how the YPLA will discharge its duties
in the future and who will be in the driving seat when it comes to
commissioning. On page 26 of the explanatory notes to the Bill, it says
that Clause 40, with which we have already dealt,
“ imposes a new
duty on local education authorities to secure that all young people in
their area who are over compulsory school age but under 19, and persons
aged 19 and over but under 25 for whom a learning difficulty assessment
has been carried
out”. The
explanatory notes go on to
say: “The
Government propose to create a small non departmental body, the Young
People’s Learning Agency for England (‘the
YPLA’)”— which
we have just been
discussing— “sponsored
by DCSF and reporting to the Secretary of State, whose core purpose is
to provide the funding to enable local education authorities to fulfil
this
duty.” In
other words, it is fairly clear from the explanatory notes, that the
principal responsibility lies with the local authority. The local
authority is the one that is being funded and that will be in the
driving seat when it comes to commissioning. However, when we look at
clause 58, we can see that it is the YPLA that is mentioned first as
having to
“secure the
provision of financial resources.”
In the
introductory part of the clause, it appears that the YPLA will be in
the driving seat in relation to commissioning and providing. Subsection
(b) refers to local education authorities which will also receive
financial resources for what is described as their functions in
relation to education or training. What amendment 256 seeks to do is
put local authorities back in the driving seat in relation to
commissioning and receipt of funding in the way in which the Government
appear to anticipate in their explanatory
notes.
Mr.
Hayes: Could we be clear about the hon. Gentleman’s
principal concern? Is it one of duplication or one of confusion? Is he
suggesting that because of the way in which the Bill is drafted, both
local authorities and this new agency would have overlapping
responsibilities? Or is he suggesting that the Bill is clumsily worded
and it does not do what the explanatory notes say that it
should?
Mr.
Laws: Until I hear from the Minister, I am afraid
to say that it is both. I am not sure whether the Bill is deliberately
confusing, whether there is a risk of duplication or whether the
intention in the Bill as drafted is not rather different from what is
in the explanatory notes, because the Bill appears to give more
commissioning power and responsibility, in relation to funding, to the
YPLA to commission directly, rather than engaging through the locally
elected authority, which according to the explanatory notes would be in
the driving
seat. Amendment
256 is designed to turn around clause 58 so that it comes into line
with the intentions stated in the explanatory notes and to make clear
what the distinct roles of the YPLA as a funder and commissioner will
be in comparison with local authorities. Is the intention, as stated in
the Bill, that the YPLA will have quite a lot of power to commission
directly and outside
the local authority control or agreement, or will this body have as one
of its prime responsibilities or its prime responsibility the funding
of local authorities so that they can discharge those duties? At the
moment, the Bill is rather confusing on that point. It would be helpful
for the Minister to end that confusion and to clarify the circumstances
in which, for example, the YPLA might ignore the wishes of the local
authority in discharging its functions under clause
58. | 
