§ 8. Mr. BarnesTo ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received regarding the funding of non-vocational education. [4097]
§ Dr. HowellsNo representations have been received specifically on this topic. My right hon. Friend recently announced the formation of a national advisory group on adult learning to advise on all issues of adult learning, including funding.
§ Mr. BarnesDid not the previous Government create a dangerous divide between the funding of non-vocational and vocational education which often led to non-vocational education being priced out of the market? I spent 21 years in adult education and always thought that there was a clear connection between vocational and non-vocational education—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members would benefit from my teaching. Are the Government going to tackle the problem created by the previous Government?
§ Dr. HowellsThe division of responsibility between the Further Education Funding Council and local education authorities for securing adequate further education stems from the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The FEFC is responsible for securing adequate provision of those courses described—I have to be careful here—in the Act under schedule 2 as having national 976 significance, such as basic skills courses, access courses and those which lead to academic or vocational qualifications. Local education authorities have been made responsible for all other kinds of courses, including those called recreational or of a leisure nature.
If my hon. Friend examines the record of Tuesday night's Adjournment debate, he will see that unless we clear up the ambiguities in what constitutes a schedule 2 and a non-schedule 2 course, we shall be in big trouble with funding. In that debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House mentioned a number of enterprises that are owed a great deal of money by the FEFC and colleges that have contracted with them. There is ambiguity about whether their courses are schedule 2 courses. The Government will resolve that problem.
§ Mr. StunellWill the Minister take note of early-day motion 166 which refers particularly to the funding of colleges? Is he aware of the parliamentary answer I received to the effect that the allocation of funding to colleges and courses is a matter for the colleges to decide? My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) mentioned engineering training. How are colleges to pay for such expensive courses in the light of the Minister's previous answers?
§ Dr. HowellsThe funding of further education colleges is the responsibility of the FEFC, which is closely monitored by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The colleges have to make a case for increased funding. If they cannot, they do not receive increased funding. If they show that they have a good intake of students who will be studying courses that will lead to accreditation in technical and scientific subjects, money will be made available, but the colleges have to prove that first and they must have good courses that are properly inspected and delivered.