HL Deb 17 January 1983 vol 437 cc1184-6

2.54 p.m.

Baroness David

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what consultations there were with professional education interests before Mr, Wilson Longden was appointed to the Manpower Services Commission as commissioner representing organisations concerned with education.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers)

My Lords, the Department of Education and Science consulted the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, the Association of Principals of Colleges and the Association of Colleges in Further and Higher Education.

Baroness David

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he please tell me how many recommendations they made, whether their recommendations were followed, and, if not, why not?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I think that it would be inappropriate for me to disclose the names of people who are recommended for appointment, but the Secretary of State for Employment has the right and the duty to make the appointment. He is obliged under the Act to consult the organisations concerned with education, but he is not obliged to accept their advice. The appointment is for him to make.

Baroness Bacon

My Lords, did I hear the Minister say that they had consulted the National Association of Teachers? Did he really mean that? Did he mean the National Union of Teachers? If not, has the National Union of Teachers been consulted?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the organisation consulted was the National Association of Teachers in further and Higher Education.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, are not these three organisations highly reputable organisations?—Indeed, they must be for the department to consult them as consistently as they have done over the years. Would the noble Earl reply to the specific question put by my noble friend, namely: was the advice of all or any of these organisations accepted by his right honourable friend, or did his right honourable friend, reject and ignore the advice of these three reputable organisations? That is really the question at issue.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make it clear. The advice was given but it was not accepted because it is the duty of my right honourable friend to make, in his judgment, the best appointment; and that is done.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, this really does reveal an extremely serious position. His right honourable friend depends on organisations like this for the best advice they can give. Is it not the case that these three organisations gave advice independently of each other to his right honourable friend and that the advice was turned down? Can he now say what was the reaction of these organisations to the action of his right honourable friend?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I think the noble Lord is not totally correct over that. If the Secretary of State were to accede to a recommendation against his better judgment, that would in effect give the right of appointment to those who were consulted and not to the Secretary of State, to whom the statutory duty applies.

Baroness David

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I think, if I may say it with all respect, the answers are extremely shifty? Is the Minister further aware that the White Paper of March 1973, Employment and Training: Government Proposals, says of appointments to the MSC: The members of the Commission will be expected to retain the confidence of the organisations consulted before their appointment"? Does he really think that a member appointed to the commission who has not been even nominated by any of the organisations that have been consulted will retain the confidence of those organisations? Is he aware that it is those very organisations which will, in their colleges, be providing the training and educational input into the Youth Training Service which is starting next October? Is this not a bad way to start, and is it not really rather a slap in the face for the educational interest?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, in reply to the noble Baroness's first question, I was not aware that it was a shifty answer. I thought the answer I had given was perfectly plain. In answer to her second question, I must be absolutely clear. The Secretary of State for Employment has the right and the duty to appoint. He is obliged to consult. He has consulted; he has not, for various reasons, taken advantage of the names put forward and has appointed as a result somebody who is eminent and totally worthy. I think it is most unfortunate if the noble Baroness considers that, as a result of that, the person concerned will not retain the confidence of the teaching profession.