Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, Amendment 149A would require the Young People’s Learning Agency to put into place a committee structure to oversee capital allocations for further education and sixth-form colleges. I understand the concern, which follows on from the well documented problems of the Learning and Skills Council earlier this year. The LSC had a committee that was a single body, but it still did not seem to be the solution to the problem because the problem was more deep-seated than that. In his well considered and independent review of the further education capital programme, Sir Andrew Foster found that, ""a good policy has been compromised by the manner of its implementation"." As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, reminded us, the intentions were good—although, as we know, the road to hell is paved with those—but the implementation was, to say the least, less than satisfactory. Sir Andrew Foster went on to make a number of recommendations, including for the stronger management of the FE capital programme, better prioritisation, and the need to shift from a demand-led to a need-based approach to funding. He urged that consideration be given to future working arrangements. The recommendations of that report have been fully accepted by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and by the LSC. As a number of people have pointed out—the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, really got to the heart of this—the YPLA will have responsibility only for the 16 to 19 capital fund, which underwrites the costs of brand new places for students aged 16 to 19 in schools and colleges. The larger FE capital fund will transfer to the Skills Funding Agency. None the less, it will be important for the YPLA to devise a structure that delivers the effective management of its capital responsibilities. It will need to have arrangements for working with the Skills Funding Agency where it has an interest in how the FE capital fund supports colleges’ 16 to 19 provision. We all agree about that. The Secretary of State will set out his expectations through his remit letter to the YPLA. We will ensure that, through that letter, the YPLA takes account of the lessons learnt from the FE capital funding programme in devising effective systems for managing the capital resources that it allocates. On that point, and to give a little more detail, simply imposing a committee structure is not enough, as we know from the lessons learnt from the LSC, unfortunately. We need to ensure that the YPLA, once it begins operating, has learnt from the problems with FE capital and has devised appropriate arrangements that minimise the risk to their capital resources. The remit letter will place the duty on the new chair and chief executive to do that. In conclusion, we believe that the remit letter is the best place for any details. It would not be right to describe essentially operational matters in the Bill, which anyway only deal with part of the problem. On the basis of this assurance, I hope we will ensure that the lessons of what happened at the LSC are learnt and reflected in the remit letter. I want to give an assurance to the noble Baronesses, Lady Perry and Lady Sharp, and all those who have contributed in this debate that we are not in any way treating this matter lightly. We will ensure that the details of the remit letter are circulated in advance because we share the same concerns as noble Lords. The way in which the capital programme is allocated is fundamentally important. We have seen the repercussions that have taken place when it goes wrong. I am not in any way dismissing the concern. We do not believe that this amendment is the right vehicle for dealing with it, although we share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and others about the need to address this problem. With my reassurance about the remit letter and the opportunity to look at it, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.