6. Statement by the Minister for Welsh Language and Lifelong Learning: The Review of Further Education Funding

Part of the debate – in the Senedd at 4:36 pm on 20 November 2018.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Bethan Sayed Bethan Sayed Plaid Cymru 4:36, 20 November 2018

Thank you for the advanced notice—it's timely, given that we have a debate on further education this time tomorrow also. We've always recognised in Plaid Cymru that, to have a successful highly skilled and productive economy, we need the facilities and the institutions that are world class, competitive with a clear mission and a plan to deliver. And further education is something that needs to be available to everyone throughout their careers and not just at school. So, it's one of the reasons, as part of the most recent budget agreement that Plaid Cymru pushed for, where we could, to secure extra money for FE, although we recognise that it's not enough and we understand the challenges that remain.

We do welcome the announcement of funding to allow a pay deal for college lecturers, which is commensurate to those achieved by teachers, and we have been calling for this for some time. It's also good to hear that funding will be available to extend that to FE staff as well, as we know that we have to achieve parity of esteem between vocational and academic qualifications and a fairer pay structure. But I would just like to probe the Minister further. We still know that there's going to be the potential for strike action in December. Do you think that this pay deal will go far enough in relation to the wider workload issues that are facing the sector?

So far as the other elements in the statement go, I am puzzled on some of the other announcements. The current funding and allocation framework was put in place in 2013. Today, we have this announcement covering the next few years, but there's no information as to how long colleges can plan ahead based on this announcement. How long a period do you envisage that the announcement today will actually last for?

The purpose of the proposed tertiary education and research commission for Wales is to provide oversight, strategic direction and leadership for the post-compulsory education and training sector, so why are you bringing forward piecemeal reform of funding for the sector now, rather than waiting for the commission to be in place to strategically review the needs of the sector? We know, based on the Hazelkorn review and other statements made by the education Secretary, that the whole of the post-16 landscape is being proposed for a major legislative overhaul. Will this mean that these announcements today, in reality, will be up in the air as soon as or if that process begins? Can you give us some more detail on when the wider legislative agenda is being planned for?

According to the statement, and I quote:

'College plans that do not reflect the RSP recommendations will not be approved.'

You also say that you intend to appoint an independent adviser and to review how we enhance the current arrangements with regional skills partnerships and their ability to have an impact on skills provision. Is the Minister confident that RSPs are equipped to make the right recommendations to colleges to ensure that employers' needs are met in those plans? Some in the sector have told me that they have no real power, no real accountability and no real direction from Welsh Government. It's my understanding that only one of the three RSPs currently have staff. RSPs need to be hardwired into the wider post-16 landscape in the way that they currently are not. Will an independent adviser be able to provide a better way forward? Although, again, I think it's something that could and should be done as part of a wider strategic change in the sector. How, for example, will the John Graystone review be worked into this announcement? They've already reviewed the RSPs—how will you be taking this into regard? There seem to be further reviews into aspects of the uplift to the formula, but I want to understand why you feel that's necessary. Have we had enough reviews in this area, or have they had enough time yet to bed in? I'd like to understand why you've made that decision.

My final question is: you've explained in the statement that part-time provision has seen drastic cuts over the last few years, and we would obviously agree with that—not agree with the fact that it's been done but agree with the statement. You say that part-time provision will be prioritised to the proportion of the population who only hold a level 2 qualification. Have you carried out an impact assessment on how this will affect different groups of learners at different levels, and have you discussed this with the sector?