My quiz question of the week is this: in June 2021, who said: “The time is surely coming…for us to move to a joined-up system of regulation and funding for all post-16 education”? Where were they speaking and about which country?

The answer might surprise some of you who have not had the time to listen to or read through the speeches from the 53 peers who spoke at the second reading of the (England-only) Skills and Post-16 Education Bill last week.

That answers part of my question, but the fact that it was uttered by Lord Johnson, previously minister for higher education, is in part why it is so notable. He was the architect of, or at the very least the midwife for, the Office for Students (OfS), which was set up only a few years ago, so he knows a bit about the “bewildering array of regulatory and funding bodies out there in the landscape”.

More by David Hughes: Why we need more than just more money

The skills bill: What the House of Lords had to say

Need to know: The Skills and Post-16 Education Bill

Lord Johnson’s contribution was one of many well-informed and passionate speeches from an eminent list of people, many of whom were previous education secretaries or ministers. (I have to concede, though, that most of the passion was not about regulation, and I know that I can be a bit of a bore about why it is so important.)

Lord Curry also warned of the risk “that the new roles envisaged would create a two-tier and rather cumbersome regulatory approval system”. The fact is, though, that many of the other contributions about what is needed were also crying out for a simpler regulatory landscape, even if the people making them didn’t allude to it.

Take the contribution from Lord Willetts, another previous higher education minister. He warned that the bill might perpetuate a simplistic and artificial distinction between so-called academic and vocational education. His plea, rightly, being that this false distinction “should not be used to create conflict between higher and further education when both have an important role to play.”

This critical point was supported by many others, including Lord Blunkett, Baroness Morris of Yardley and Lord Puttnam, who said: “Far from being in competition for resources, these two sectors [HE and FE] should be encouraged to move in lock-step, as never before.”

Other peers, including Lord Bichard and Lord Shipley, echoed the need for more joining-up by arguing that the lifelong loan entitlement should not be bolted on to current systems but be part of a single, reformed and simple funding system for all. Without a single regulator, that is difficult to achieve, and without consistent and appropriate accountability, it could be very unfair.

The reality is that we currently have confusing, unhelpful and burdensome regulation with different funding, quality, accountability and strategic arrangements for different parts of the post-16 landscape. Interestingly, this has been recognised and acted upon in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

In Scotland there are reforms being discussed to build on the success of the single FE and HE regulatory and funding regime; in Wales, the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Bill will create one single tertiary regulator; and, in Northern Ireland, they are developing a single post-16 strategy. So, why not in England?

Regulation in FE: ripe for reform

The answer is complex. In part, it is because of the very recent establishment of the OfS, the inertia of history and the sheer scale of the change needed. Probably most of all, though, I fear it is either a failure of vision and understanding about the gains to be won or a failure of nerve because it would be a significant reform programme, which many would probably oppose. I genuinely think it is the greatest missed opportunity in the Skills Bill and would have made the biggest impact, for the better.

It might be a stretch too far, then, to achieve a single regulatory body for post-16 education in this bill, but we may have moved to a wider realisation that it should be an ambition in the near future.

Our proposed amendment that the regulation for everything up to and including level 5 should rest with the Eduction and Skills Funding Agency, and everything Level 6 and above with OfS would be a positive step forward. It would make clear that the growth in level 4 and 5 learning that the government wants, and that employers need, should be focused on labour market needs as well as learner needs. It would allow a provider-neutral position, requiring colleges, universities and independent providers all to pay due regard to the new local skills improvement plans, rather than just colleges, and it would allow a new strategic joining-up to begin to emerge.

I sincerely hope that this change is achieved as a first step to a bigger set of changes that, ultimately, we will need if we are going to have a joined-up system of post-16 education and skills. There is bewildering array of regulatory and funding arrangements out there - the OfS, the Education and Skills Funding Agency, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, Ofqual, Ofsted, QAA - and they are ripe for reform. We need one strategy, one funding system, one set of accountabilities for every adult who wants and needs to learn through life. Simple, clear and essential.