TEACHING OF ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE-RELATED SUBJECTS

HC Deb 27 June 2000 vol 352 cc809-21 '.—The Learning and Skills Council shall present a report annually on the trends in the teaching of engineering and science-related subjects throughout the previous year. This report shall include a section relating to the proportion of the cohort—

1. (a) commencing studies in those subjects; and
2. (b) completing studies in those subjects

with particular reference to the gender of students.'.—[Mr. Willis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Willis

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 10—London Learning and Skills Co-ordinating Committee—

1. '.—(1) The Council will establish a London Learning and Skills Co-ordinating Committee ("the Committee") to co-ordinate the activities of the local learning and skills councils in London.
2. (2) The Committee shall be appointed by the Council and shall consist of not more than 15 members and shall have a majority of members with business experience.
3. (3) The functions of the Committee shall be:
4. (5) The functions of the Committee shall be:

1. (a) to undertake research for the learning and skills councils and provide information on employment, skills and the labour market in London;
2. (b) to provide a forum for common decision making on the planning and delivery of the functions and responsibilities of the learning and skills councils;
3. (c) to agree common operational frameworks and guidelines for the work of the learning and skills councils in London;
4. (d) to liaise with the Mayor, the Greater London Authority, London Development Agency and other relevant partners on skills and employment issues;
5. (e) to co-ordinate the activities of the learning and skills councils in relation to the London Small Business Service.'.

New clause 19—Regional Learning and Skills Co-ordinating Committees—

1. '.—(1) The Council must establish a Learning on Skills Co-ordinating Committee ("the Committee") to co-ordinate the activities of the Local Learning and Skills Councils ("the local council") in each of the English regions as described in section 1 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 ("the Region").
2. (2) The Committee shall consist of not more than 15 members.
3. (3) Committee members shall be appointed by the Council from nominations by each of the local councils that comprise "the Region" and must include representatives from the Regional Development Agency, Small Business Service, local authorities and the wider business community.
4. (4) The Chairman shall be a member of and be appointed by the members of the Committee—
5. (5) The functions of the Committee shall be:

1. (a) to undertake research for the local councils and provide information on employment, skills and the labour market in each Region;
2. (b) to provide a forum for common decision making across the Region on the planning and delivery of the functions and responsibilities of the learning and skills councils;
3. (c) to agree common operational frameworks and guidelines for the work of the local councils in each Region;
4. (d) to liaise with the Regional Development Agency and other relevant partners as agreed by the Committee on skills and employment issues;
5. (e) to co-ordinate the activities of the local councils in relation to the Small Business Service;
6. (f) to co-ordinate the activities of the local councils in relation to the Careers Services.'.

Amendment No. 104, in clause 12, page 7, line 3, at end add— '() The Council must establish systems for collecting information which is designed to secure that its decisions with regard to information, advice and guidance services are made on a sound basis.'. Government amendments Nos. 31, 91, 32 and 42 to 44.

Amendment No. 74, in schedule 3, page 74, line 31, at end insert—

', or to the London Learning and Skills Co-ordinating Committee established under section (London Learning and Skills Co-ordinating Committee).'.

Mr. Willis

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) will speak to new clause 1, but I wish to speak to new clause 19, which deals with the organisation committees of the regional councils.

It has taken four hours, but at last we shall be discussing the essence of the Bill. For all that time, Conservative Members avoided talking about—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman should talk not about what has gone before, but about what is before us now—the new clause.

Mr. Willis

I am admonished, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

One of the real challenges in moving from the old organisation of post-16 education, training and lifelong learning is not simply to have a reorganisation but to do something much better. There is no point in getting rid of training and enterprise councils, the Further Education Funding Council or, indeed, the plethora of other organisations simply so as to swap the seats on the Titanic and replace them with different ones.

In Committee, in another place and in the House we have always argued that we wanted not a single Learning and Skills Council, but regional learning and skills councils coterminous with the regional development agencies—hopefully, the forerunners of the regional assemblies—so that the regions have not only an identity but, alongside the RDAs, the means to apply the skills and education agenda post-16. We lost that argument in Committee and we accept that. We do not wish to re-run it, as I am sure hon. Members will be delighted to hear.

In reality, many areas of Britain have ended up with a region, under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1988, and we now have sub-regional councils of the Learning and Skills Council. In Yorkshire and the Humber, for example, where my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam and I operate, we have three such organisations. The point of the amendment is that we surely need an overarching organisation that will allow the three organisations to speak to each other.

Much of the organisational structure set up by the Bill will hopefully work for the benefit of education and training post-16, but unless we have that co-ordination, the sub-regional committees of the local councils will go off on their own and will not truly speak to each other. All we are asking for is a co-ordination committee. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) has tabled a similar amendment for London. That is the essence—

Mr. Gordon Marsden

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and the Liberal Democrats have pulled back from their position in Committee, but in stressing the need for the changes he is surely showing a lack of confidence in the regional development agencies. He is suggesting that they are not capable of, or will not be able to make, the sort of contacts and communication that has been suggested.

Mr. Willis

The hon. Member for Blackpool, North—[HON. MEMBERS: "South".] It was pretty near. The hon. Gentleman is showing an uncharacteristic naivety. He has demonstrated his lack of knowledge of the Bill, which surprises me. Throughout, we have argued that the connection between the RDA and the Learning and Skills Council is tenuous. Indeed, those links were put in only at the last minute. I would be happy if there were a direct statutory link between the council and the RDA as that would solve our problem. That is not the case, which is why we are arguing for the new clause.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam will deal with our other amendments if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster)

Like the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), I regret the hour at which we are coming to these matters. After your stricture upon him, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not enlarge on what he said. I hope that you will excuse my saying, however, that I noticed that the Minister who dealt with the previous debate declined to take an intervention on the grounds that we were short of time. As the House rose at 6 pm yesterday, such excuses seem funny in the conduct of Government business.

New clause 10 and amendment No. 74, which is consequential on it, stand in my name and I speak to them. They are of a probing nature. Amendments to the same general effect were moved at columns 836 to 843 on 10 February in the Standing Committee in the House of Lords by Lord Tope and Lord Harris of Haringey, neither of whom are of my party, but both of whom have been long involved in London local government. Lord Tope was once briefly a London Member of Parliament.

9.15 pm

I should in all honesty acknowledge to the House that in the debate on 10 February, Baroness Blatch advised the other place against the propositions that I am putting forward. But that was 10 February, and we have not heard further from the Government since Lord Tope, in acceding to the Government's request to withdraw his amendment, said that he hoped that the Government would say more on the subject later. Since then, we have had silence.

I wish to probe the Government's position on a London co-ordinating body for the five learning and skills councils that are to be established in the capital. The subject was debated in another place—I have given the reference—but it has not previously been covered in this House. Lord Harris of Haringey explained the debate that had occurred in the London Development Partnership when it made its recommendation, by a narrow margin, that there should be five local learning and skills councils in London, but also recommended that there should be a co-ordinating body. The concept of the co-ordinating body was accepted by the Government, through Baroness Blackstone, in the other place when she responded to the debate.

I understand that the reason the Government have rejected the concept is that, although they have endorsed the concept of a co-ordinating body, they believe that it should not be on the face of the Bill. But although stakeholders in London understand the need to avoid another layer of bureaucracy, they are anxious to ensure a Londonwide approach to the many issues that cannot be decided solely by a single sub-region of London. The complex travel-to-work and travel-to-learning flows in the capital mean that unilateral action by one learning and skills council could adversely affect the actions of another. London's stakeholders are looking for a more powerful model than the one the Government appear to have in mind.

A stronger co-ordinating body is needed for the following purposes. It is needed to provide a focal point of contact for Londonwide employers and bodies, including the mayor and Assembly and the single Small Business Service. It is needed to provide labour market forecasting and analysis. There are significant economies of scale to be achieved by a joint approach, and the valuable work of the London skills forecasting unit needs to be sustained in the new learning and skills council arrangements. A co-ordinating body is needed to share and co-ordinate London plans and priorities—the fact that funding will follow learners and providers will require a Londonwide approach to planning and rationalising provision if real benefits are to be achieved. A co-ordinating body is also needed to agree operating frameworks and procedures so that learners and employers can be treated equally in London; and, finally, to provide a forum for agreeing collective action and overcoming disagreements.

We would not be building from a zero base in this respect. It is important that the good work that has been done by the London training and enterprise council and the skills forecasting unit on behalf of TECs, and the work by the London office of the Further Education Funding Council, should be incorporated in a new London co-ordinating body.

Since I tabled new clause 10 and amendment No. 74, the regional director of the London region of the Association of Colleges has written to me to say: A co-ordinating body would make a great improvement to the provision of post-compulsory education and training in the city under the LSC. As things stand at present London will be divided arbitrarily into five areas whose boundaries defy the fact that the capital is a single labour market and also one travel-to-work and travel-to-study area. Although they bear no relation to reality, the boundaries—once established—will begin to acquire the status of fiefdoms. Local council members and executive directors will soon believe that they know what is best for the individuals and firms in their own geographical patches, and begin to act without reference to either their population's wider interests or the greater interests of London as a whole. At the very time when we have gained a body, in the form of the GLA, to look after the strategic interests of London, the Government intends to remove both the overarching powers and duties of the FEFC's regional office and the co-ordinating influence of the London TEC Council. We will now have to rely on a head office in Coventry to determine a framework for collecting and analysing information, for agreeing priorities and for bringing together plans. It would be much better to fulfil these functions regionally. I tabled the new clause and the amendment as one London local MP among 74. In 1987, it was remarked by economists that, until then, the London economy had been growing more slowly than that of the rest of the country, but that the dramatic effect of big bang had accelerated growth in London, causing the city not only to grow faster than the rest of the country but to lead the country's growth. In my constituency, 20 times as many people are employed as in the average constituency—both nationally and in London; 22 per cent. of the working population of greater London work in my constituency. If the remaining 78 per cent. is divided by the 73 other London seats, the resultant figure is somewhat lower than 1.1 per cent.—that is, 5 per cent. of my 22 per cent.

The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) is in the Chamber. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the working population of my constituency alone exceeded the entire working population of Northern Ireland by 50 per cent. If there is such a great concentration in one constituency—which will of course fall under one particular learning and skills council—one fears that the benefits of that engine of economic activity in the heart of the capital will not be felt by the rest of London unless there is serious co-ordination. I have already referred to the London skills forecasting unit.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), is himself a London Member. Since I have been a Member of the House, we have seen increasing integration of the health service of London; policing has become borough based; and we are about to welcome the mayor and the Greater London Assembly.

I have one suspicion about the Government's action. As London will be the first of our cities with a mayor, that will give it pole position. That is why a co-ordinating committee has a relevance in London that it might not have in Birmingham or Manchester—as the Minister for Education and Employment made clear in the House of Lords. If London has such a committee, there is a risk that other people will want one too—as is revealed by the Liberal Democrat proposals. That would be easier to avoid if the issue were left out of the Bill.

Through the Government's initial response in the House of Lords and the impression they give us that they should be trusted—as there has been silence on the matter since then—they are saying, in effect, that they can be relied on to deliver a sensible arrangement, or that such an arrangement will emerge because they endorse the reason for it. However, there seems to be no reciprocity in other amendments tabled for debate; although the Government are asking London to trust them, they would not necessarily be trusted because of the statutory provisions that they want to implement—especially in relation to the cessation of TECs and their assets.

I do not want to leap forward to a discussion of those proposals; in tabling my provisions, I want only to be given a clearer idea of the results the Government envisage from a co-ordinating body whose importance—[Interruption.] I realise that the Minister is not trying to speak to me, but inevitably I can see his lips moving.

The Government should make clear what they think will occur in London—with much greater substance, structure and form than has been given so far.

Mr. Allan

I speak to new clause 1 and amendment No. 104, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and me. They highlight two important matters to which the Learning and Skills Council should pay attention.

New clause 1 addresses the shortage subjects of science and engineering, where problems could arise owing to the number of recruits across the board, but especially in respect of the number of women entering those professions. The new clause would require the Learning and Skills Council to collect data on the number of people both entering and completing courses in those subjects and to break down the information by gender, so that we can consider the number of women as a separate category.

The background to the new clause is that there are too few women at all levels of science and engineering. That is a matter of concern for the Learning and Skills Council, because the problem is especially acute in post-16 education. Up to GCSE, all girls study science and mathematics, so 51 per cent. of those obtaining a maths GCSE and 38 per cent. of those obtaining a physics GCSE are female students. However, the percentage of female students completing A-level courses is down from 51 per cent. to 33 per cent. for maths and from 38 per cent. to only 20 per cent. for physics.

Clearly, there is a huge fall-off at the A-level end of the education spectrum and the number of female students is further depleted by the time they reach higher education, where women constituted only 14 per cent. of applicants to engineering degree courses in 1998. However, there are variations across the different disciplines in engineering. For example, 24 per cent. of the applicants to study chemical engineering are women, but in mechanical engineering the figure is only 9 per cent. I hope that the House will recognise from those figures that the number of women studying science and maths falls off dramatically from the age of 16 onwards.

The Learning and Skills Council will have a direct responsibility for female students over 16. Further education often offers engineering courses as an end in themselves, but they suffer from a fall-off in numbers even though they can provide a gateway into higher education. The council should therefore take action to deal with that problem.

Although groups such as Women into Science and Engineering have performed valuable work and raised the number of female engineering graduates from 7 per cent. in 1984 to 15 per cent. today, that work is not in itself sufficient. We hope that it will be boosted by further Government action, particularly through the new bodies, such as the Learning and Skills Council, that they are setting up.

There are a variety of reasons for the figures, and one explanation can be found at the careers guidance level. Amendment No. 104 deals with careers guidance more generally, but women appear to be pointed in directions that are not entirely helpful in achieving a balance between the genders on engineering courses.

The Department for Education and Employment could do more to promote active role models for women going into science and engineering. Such role models are perceived not to exist and that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. The fewer women who study such subjects, the fewer there are to encourage other women to copy and aspire to their example.

If we do not tackle the problem, we shall miss out on a huge pool of talent. Women make just as competent scientists and engineers as anyone else. However, only 14 per cent. of the graduates in these subjects are women and if we were to achieve a 50:50 gender balance, a huge gap would be filled. A significant number of women would make good professional scientists and engineers, but for one reason or another they are not entering those professions.

Britain needs top-class engineers. By increasing the number of women in science and engineering, we would not only enhance and the assist the abilities of women wishing to enter those professions, but we would enhance the reputation of the professions as a whole. Men who are thinking of entering science and engineering may similarly be put off if they perceive them to be not truly modern, representative professions, but ones that conform to old-fashioned stereotypes about what science and engineering are for.

If the Government are not able to accept the new clause, I hope that they will at least accept the principle behind it. Will they give us an idea of how their new structure of a Learning and Skills Council that is responsible for policy in this matter will improve on the status quo? I hope that they will accept that they need to improve the position and that they will tell us that a priority of the Learning and Skills Council will be to achieve a better representation of women in the shortage subjects that I have mentioned.

I do not need to remind the Minister that this issue also follows through into the teaching profession. If people are not given the opportunity to study science and engineering at A-level and at degree level, they will not be able to become teachers. We have shortages in those key subjects and the Government are trying to deal with that problem. However, the first way of increasing the intake into teaching is to increase the number of graduates. That means expanding the pool across the genders.

9.30 pm

Amendment No. 104 is a response to many concerns that have been raised by the careers service about the new focus that the Government will have on 14 to 19-year-olds. We debated the issues in Committee and I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments about Connexions. I merely propose that the Government could provide reassurance by indicating that the national Learning and Skills Council will at least collect data on guidance services. We are all receiving plenty of anecdotal evidence about how careers services are being withdrawn. I have been given examples of schools, for example, which say, "We have only a few disaffected youngsters as a proportion of the yearly cohorts, but many others will not have the quality time and attention which all youngsters require. The individual vocation and guidance interview is pivotal in all 11 to 16-year-old students' lives."

Many schools reflect this and ask, "How can we have equality of opportunity if we risk moving into a situation in which guidance services, while they are properly focused on disaffected youths in the key 14 to 19-year-old group, are not available to others?"

When the Government rejected an amendment proposed by my noble Friend Baroness Sharp of Guildford, they indicated that they do not wish to see statutory provision to the effect that we must maintain the level of services. In refusing to accept that amendment, they made a clear commitment to the careers and guidance services as a whole that the Government did not intend to see large-scale withdrawal of services from other groups of youngsters. We believe that they will not be able to justify their position unless they accept measures of the sort that we are proposing in amendment No. 104.

If the Government accepted that, we hope that they would seek to accept a base-line study to ascertain exactly what is happening. One of the problems is that we are not aware of the full picture within the careers and guidance services. Some of the provision takes place in schools, some by careers companies, some by other advice agencies, some by employers and some by training agencies.

It would be helpful if the Government were to require the national Learning and Skills Council to establish such a base-line study at this stage and then to report back regularly on it, so that we could see whether Connexions has led to withdrawal of service in other areas as advisers are diverted, or whether, as I think the Government have said they hope will happen, the broad range of provision available to all youngsters will be maintained at the same time as an enhanced service is offered to priority groups, preferably with additional funding made available under the comprehensive spending review. I understand that the Government intend that to happen.

I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to our suggestion that we undertake serious research into what is happening in careers guidance services. I hope also that he will make a commitment to report back in future so that we can establish whether the sort of fears that are being expressed to us from throughout the country are being realised, or whether the Government can pull out of the hat the magic rabbit that will deliver an enhanced service and a broad range of quality service to all youngsters, no matter whether they suffer social disadvantage or whether they are performing adequately at school, and thus risk being excluded from those on whom careers services will be focused.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)

I support amendment No. 104. I apologise to the Minister and hon. Members who served on the Committee if I go over some of the ground that was covered in Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) spoke of the real fears of many in the careers service and in the school sector about the provisions that are set out in the Bill. I can only echo those fears from the view of my constituency. That was what prompted me to intervene on Second Reading, having had a useful meeting with Peter Renshaw of Somerset careers. My feelings and sense of concern have been increased by letters that I have received from several secondary schools in my constituency, including Frome community college, Huish Episcopi school and Sexey's school, Bruton. They all make the self-same points, which I shall bring to the attention of the House.

Not one of the principals or head teachers who wrote to me expressed discontent with the Government's motivation and intention: they made it clear that prioritising social inclusion was an entirely meritorious aim which they supported and wanted to be reflected in their careers service. Their concern was that there should be no diversion of the resources necessary to provide an adequate service to all children, especially year 11 students who need their school careers service if they are to take full advantage of the opportunities available to them and enter either training or careers that are of value to them.

It strikes me that we are harking back to the debate of recent weeks about elitism in university admissions. The one way in which to break down such obstacles is to provide good guidance at the appropriate time to youngsters who are studying in comprehensive schools throughout our country—not only those who are falling behind, whether for social or educational reasons, but brighter kids who can profit from entering higher education and need to talk through the opportunities available to them if they are to take full advantage of them. There is a need to ensure that the new system continues to provide the same level of careers service in local education authority schools.

A cause of discontent expressed in a letter to me from Mr. Barry Bates, principal of Frome community college, is that the changes will adversely affect the integrity of the careers service as it stands. We are having difficulty finding permanent replacements for staff who are leaving the local careers service; it is a good careers service that achieves a great deal in our schools, but the uncertainty that surrounds the Government's proposals puts at risk the integrity of careers service teams.

The Minister can put our minds at rest by accepting our amendment. That would make it clear that there was an intention to revisit the matter and ensure that overall resources were not diminished by the changes. Not only could baseline data be collected but, even more importantly, baseline provision could be established, which would ensure that every child had access to a basic entitlement, irrespective of any additional support given to some. The Minister could also reassure us by making us confident that funding will be sufficient to meet all of the objectives that the Government have set out for the new service. We do not know how it could be provided—perhaps the comprehensive spending review will provide.

We in Somerset know that, on the whole, our county achieves good GCSE results and that we have relatively low levels of social deprivation, so we accept that we will not be winners. There is a separate argument to be had about schools funding, but we know that if resources are to be redirected to address social deprivation through careers services, the big increases will go to places other than Somerset. What we do not want is children in our schools to be losers. That is the reassurance that head teachers, parents and students in my constituency and my county of Somerset want to hear this evening.

Mr. Wicks

At this hour, several important and detailed points have been raised. I shall do my best to answer them, but if I do not do so in the detail required, I apologise and promise to write to right hon. and hon. Members later.

I understand the Liberal Democrats' position on new clause 19 and their allegiance to regionalism. We discussed in some detail the pros and cons of that in relation to learning and skills in the Standing Committee. The new clause is designed to establish a relationship between the learning and skills councils and the regional dimension embodied in the regional development agencies. I am sympathetic to that aim, but I think that the new clause presents the wrong course.

As we have said before, the regional dimension of an influential role for RDAs and their regional skills strategies is clearly provided for in the Bill. Furthermore, local learning and skills councils will draw in broad representation from outstanding local individuals and the wider business community, with relevant expertise to ensure that Government-supported learning and skills delivery meets the needs of individuals, businesses and their communities at national, regional, sectoral and local level.

We expect local LSCs to play an important role in partnerships established by regional development agencies and other bodies, such as local authorities and the Small Business Service. I hope that with those reassurances and the more detailed reassurances that I gave in Committee about the consultation process between the RDAs and the LSCs, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will be reassured of our good intention to relate the local to the regional with regard to learning and skills.

On new clause 10 and the issue of London, I thank the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for drawing this important matter to our attention. As a London Member myself, I take it extremely seriously. I remind the House that the London development partnership recommended that there should be five local LSCs in London and a co-ordinating mechanism to make sure that pan-London issues are dealt with effectively. The right hon. Gentleman, as a student of London governance over the years, understands the importance of London and the difficulties relating to boundaries within London.

At one stage there were some interesting arguments in favour of one learning and skills council for London, but because of the sheer size we thought that that would be a step too far for the interests of Londoners. We have repeatedly made it clear that we accept both conclusions presented to us—the need for five LSCs for London, and the need for a pan-London mechanism that would operate with a fairly light touch. There should be no question of our presenting the House with a recommendation for a new layer of bureaucracy.

As we prepare the ground for the new post-16 landscape, the Government office for London is engaged in discussions with key external partners, including representatives of the local authorities, training and enterprise councils, colleges, employers, trade unions and the voluntary sector, about how the co-ordinating arrangement might operate and the issues that it would address. It would then be for the LSC chair and chief executive, in discussion with the five London local LSCs, to decide on the detailed arrangements. The work is under way already. We do not believe that we need statutory provision for those arrangements.

In describing what we need as a light touch, I do not mean one that is insubstantial. The issues in Greater London are considerable. Clearly, at a time when Parliament has re-established a Greater London Authority and the people of London have just elected their first Mayor, it is entirely appropriate that we examine Greater London issues. With those assurances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment. I thank him for raising an important issue.

In speaking to the Government amendments to schedules 1 and 2, I give due credit to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), whose eye for detail first enabled us in Committee to spot the possible need for an amendment to schedule 1. The point that he made was that the chair or chief executive of the national Learning and Skills Council, both of whom will be LSC board members, should be eligible for re-appointment to their additional roles as chair and chief executive, as well as for re-appointment as LSC board members.

The hon. Gentleman agreed at that time to withdraw his amendment to allow for an examination of that point in relation to other provisions in the Bill. The result is a set of technical amendments in respect of the national LSC, local LSCs, the Welsh council and its committees, as well as the adult learning inspectorate, which ensure that provisions in the relevant schedules are consistent in their effects on issues of membership, tenure and re-appointment. The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, gain some well-deserved satisfaction from seeing that Government amendment No. 42 is identical to that tabled by him in Committee. I thank him for his close scrutiny of our Bill.

9.45 pm

In respect of new clause 1, the Government entirely agree with the Liberal Democrats about the importance of improving the participation of women in science and engineering courses. The fact that I am replying briefly to the considered speech of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) takes nothing away from that, or the importance of participation in the industries for which they prepare.

The number of girls and women studying science has gone up in recent years, and the DTI has been actively campaigning to improve the situation still further, especially in engineering. Of course, the LSC will collect comprehensive information on subjects being studied and on student achievements in all areas of post-16 learning, including science and engineering courses, and we expect it to make the figures publicly available. I think that that is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman wanted. The FEFC publishes statistics for each academic year on student numbers in the various subject areas, which includes a breakdown of students by gender, age and mode of study. We expect the LSC to continue this activity, and the provisions in the Bill allow for that without any further amendment. The hon. Gentleman may therefore consider withdrawing what I think was an important probing amendment on an important subject.

I understand and sympathise with the sentiments behind amendment No. 104, which calls for information. On the basis of that, we have had a brief discussion on the nature of Connexions as a universal service. I shall say no more about that now, because a later set of amendments will enable us to discuss it a little more fully. I say simply that we are committed to Connexions as a universal service for all of our 13-year-olds to 19-year-olds.

The Government are already developing systems to capture information relating to the local information, advice and guidance services, including their quality, efficiency and impact. The Secretary of State will set priorities for information, advice and guidance provision as part of the process of allocating funds to the LSC. Depending on the nature of these priorities, the Secretary of State will devolve responsibility for managing the appropriate information systems needed to support him.

Finally, I come to the remaining Government amendments to the LSC's functions. We have always made it crystal clear that the provisions in the Bill which set out the LSC's functions will encompass both work force development and economic regeneration activity. Indeed, these matters are at the heart of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 make that explicit.

In Committee, we reflected on the priority for work force development at the local level through an amendment to the provisions governing the local LSC's plans. Amendment No. 31 to clause 16 represents the second half of a commitment we made in Committee. It makes it explicit that at the national level the LSC's strategy must set out how it intends to develop the skills of people in the work force, while ensuring that that does not inadvertently affect the interpretation of the LSC's overall remit.

In Government amendment No. 32 we return to the territory of local LSC plans. It makes explicit our commitment to economic development and regeneration by providing that a local LSC's plans must include a statement of the likely affect of its activities on the wider economic development and regeneration of its area. No one should now be able to doubt what is already set out in the "Learning to Succeed" White Paper and the prospectus for the Learning and Skills Council: our commitment to give adults the opportunity to continue learning throughout their working life.

I hope that with those explanations and assurances—

Mr. Brooke

I do not wish to be derogatory about the hon. Gentleman's speech, whose spirit I very much appreciate, but he did not really add anything to what I said in speaking to my amendment. However, he said that he would write to me. It would be extremely helpful if he would write with rather more substantive comments on what the Government office for London is achieving in terms of negotiations with the principal stakeholders.

Mr. Wicks

What I sought to do, albeit with an eye slightly on the clock, given the hour and the business before us, was to say that we need a body representing the whole of the Greater London perspective. We are in consultation and we are developing our plans. The right hon. Gentleman, as a fellow Londoner, will be the first to know when we have developed our plans. I hope that the assurances that I have given mean that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will consider withdrawing the amendment and that hon. Members will support the Government amendments.

Mr. Willis

I thank the Minister for the courtesy of his replies and for accepting that the issues that we raised, even at this late hour, are serious. It is rather sad that we are rushing through the amendments, which have enormous substance. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) was right to make a crucial point about London. It is sad that we have not debated that properly. However, with the assurances that we have received, especially about collecting statistics on women in engineering and science and the effectiveness of the new careers service, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.