HL Deb 22 July 1987 vol 488 cc1418-25

5.14 p.m.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I can now repeat a Statement on polytechnics and inner London which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Statement is as follows:

"In our White Paper on higher education we gave a notice of our intention to legislate to re-establish the polytechnics and certain local authority maintained colleges as freestanding corporate bodies outside local authority control. The White Paper indicated that the new funding arrangements would also apply to certain institutions assisted by local education authorities. We expressed confidence that the local authorities would in the intervening period before the legislation was enacted continue to act responsibly in the funding of the institutions due for transfer and the upkeep of their plant. I remain confident that the great majority of authorities will act responsibly, but it has come to my attention that a small number of local authorities are planning or taking steps which would either deprive the polytechnic or college concerned of assets which it needs for effective operation or would seriously encumber those assets.

"Regrettably this makes it necessary for me to take action to protect these institutions. I am not prepared to allow the interests of present and future students to be put at risk in this way. It is neither in the local nor the national interest that damage should be done to the education those institutions do and will continue to provide. I therefore propose to seek Parliament's approval in the forthcoming legislation to a measure whereby my specific consent will be required for all disposals by local education authorities of land or interests in land, including buildings, used or held or obtained for or in connection with the purposes of those institutions. Those are the ones which I intend to be freestanding corporate bodies together with those institutions which are presently assisted by local education authorities and which I intend should become funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. The names of the institutions are set out in my separate Written Answer to my honourable friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale.

"The disposals of land or interests in land requiring my consent will include outright sale, granting or otherwise disposing of any leasehold or other interest in land, direct sale and leaseback, and any mortgage or other charge designed to raise capital on the security of the land. It will also include any disposal which is made in return for the supply of goods or services. In referring to disposals I include entering into any binding obligation to make a disposal of the kind in question.

"Similarly in relation to our proposals to allow inner London authorities to apply to take over from the Inner London Education Authority the responsibilities of the local education authority for their areas, the Government have decided to include provisions within the legislation requiring ILEA to obtain my consent in advance to the following actions. The first is any disposal of land or interests in land, including buildings, used or held or obtained for or in connection with their education functions. Disposals will be as in the case of polytechnics and colleges. The second, is any contract for a consideration having a value in excess of £15,000.

"In considering whether to give my consent I may seek the views of parties affected, including any inner London authority with a potential interest in the transaction. I shall seek Parliament's approval to the provisions both for the polytechnics and colleges and for ILEA having effect from midnight tonight. This Statement does not affect enforceable obligations entered into before midnight tonight.

"I shall also seek Parliament's approval for certain sanctions where my consent has not been obtained in advance. For the disposal of land or interests in land without my consent there will be a power of compulsory purchase with a right of recovery from the local authority or from ILEA of any compensation payable. In the case of contracts, including contracts for disposal, which I have mentioned, entered into without my consent, there will be a right of repudiation, and such repudiation will be deemed to be a repudiation by ILEA or the relevant local authority, so that any liability in damages will remain with ILEA or the relevant local authority.

"My department is today writing to all local education authorities which currently maintain or assist polytechnics or colleges affected by the legislation and to ILEA and the inner London authorities to explain how these provisions will be applied. I shall continue to monitor the activities of maintaining and assisting local authorities, and of ILEA in particular and shall not hesitate to take whatever additional steps are necessary to prevent the interests of present and future pupils and students from being jeopardised."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made in another place. I am sure that he will recognise that there is a great deal of agreement on this side of the House with the Government's proposals on the issue of corporate status for polytechnics. Indeed, there has been a great deal of agreement from local education authorities, from the educational trade unions and from others involved in education. Quite apart from the White Paper issued in April of this year, that was a policy which was urged by the National Advisory Board's management review, commissioned by the previous Secretary of State for Education. On that matter, there is no disagreement with the proposals or indeed with the means which are now sought to be used to achieve the desired ends.

However, is it not the case that all of the matters which are now the subject of what is perhaps rather an emergency Statement at the very end of this part of the Session of Parliament before the Recess could have been anticipated at the time of the White Paper? Is there anything which is known now which was not known at the time of the White Paper and which could not have been prepared for well in advance? In particular, the Statement refers to the small number of local authorities that have been or are planning to bypass the intentions of the Government. Will the noble Earl name those authorities and tell us in what way they have been bypassing the intentions of the Government? As I understand it from the debate in another place, the Secretary of State was unable to give specific examples of what has actually been happening.

Is it not the case that extra staff will be required for the proposals related to polytechnics? Is it not the case that there will be planning blight because there are inevitably long-term proposals for the redevelopment of polytechnics, their properties and their locations? Will there be a hiatus in decisions concerning capital expenditure? What proposals do the Government have to overcome the problems which are inevitable in a proposal of this kind?

The Statement refers to two different matters. One is the question of the corporate status of polytechnics. The second is a quite different matter of the proposals for the break-up of ILEA. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Leeds, is no longer present. However, perhaps the Minister will recall that it was the noble Lord who in his report of 1977 described the physical and financial difficulties attendant upon breaking up ILEA, and said: Only a fool would attempt it". Will the noble Earl accept that description of his right honourable friend? Does he recall that in 1981, the present Secretary of State for Education said that a break-up of ILEA of the sort that he described would produce: a rump of poorer, deprived boroughs"? He also mentioned an increase in administrative costs. Is there any reason to suppose that the Secretary of State has better evidence than he had in 1980–81? Does he recall that an inquiry carried out by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on behalf of the then Secretary of State for Education concluded, in the words of the Secretary of State, that what was needed was a, single authority of adequate size", in London? How is that consistent with the proposals now being made?

Finally, how does the Minister square what is now being proposed with the Statement of Sir Keith Joseph when he was Secretary of State only three years ago that what was needed was: a continuing unitary authority for London". Under the circumstances, is it not the case that the imposition of these restrictions, not just on capital expenditure and disposal of lands but on all contracts down to a level of £15,000, is the unnecessary, undesirable and unworthy result of an unworthy change in political policy? That was a change which was not in any way a result of consultation but which arose as an ill-understood and ill-worked-out manifesto commitment at the time of the last election.

Those are different matters from the question of polytechnics. However, they deserve better answers than we have been given so far.

Lord Kilmarnock

My Lords, we on these Benches also thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. We have not dissented from the Government's mainstream plans for polytechnics. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh; I find this emergency Statement rather puzzling in one or two respects.

The Government refer to a small number of local authorities but they seem to be very coy about giving names other than that of the Inner London Education Authority. I believe that paragraph 3 refers to the names of institutions, but that is actually a separate list to those actually affected by the Statement.

We on these Benches have made many criticisms of the current Inner London Education Authority. We believe that if the Government had agreed that that authority should be elected and constituted as we suggested, many of the problems would not have arisen. Even so, it would be interesting to know what evidence the Government have of any drastic disposal plans by ILEA of any of their polytechnic interests. My understanding is that the ILEA polytechnics already have a corporate status. It would be surprising if there were plans to break up that patrimony. Perhaps the Government in the interest of fairness can give us the evidence they have for that intention and also their evidence for the proposed spoliation of existing schools prior to any rejigging of ILEA when its current mandate comes to an end. The Statement is extremely coy on all those matters.

I should like to make one final point. It does not arise strictly from the Statement but I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he will confirm that his department has received the recommendations of Sir Alistair Pilkington's committee on polytechnic-local links. I understand that those recommendations were sent to him before 30th June, as required, with a detailed response to the White Paper. Those recommendations are very important for the future conduct of polytechnics under the new dispensation.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, in response to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, as regards evidence, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has evidence in the form of reports from the polytechnics and colleges themselves and from local authority documents that several authorities are actively considering or taking steps to avoid polytechnic and college assets being transferred.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Which ones?

The Earl of Arran

On the second point made by the noble Lord regarding ILEA, the inner London boroughs must obviously be given the opportunity to decide for themselves whether to take on education functions. I believe that many will be keen to do so. However, if some wish education to be administered within their areas by a unitary authority, albeit one that may be reduced in size by the decisions of other boroughs, that is not a possibility that we should rule out.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, if I may I shall write to him on the question of Sir Alistair Pilkington's report, as I do not have the answer. However, I would think it quite probable that noble Lords on the Benches opposite, in the light of similar future legislation, might also seek similar protective measures.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the light of the facts which he has disclosed, most thinking people will feel that Her Majesty's Government have done the least that they possibly could in the face of a very serious situation? So far as the action threatened by ILEA, is he aware that that will increase the doubt in the minds of many of us as to whether it is right to allow ILEA to continue at all?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks and it goes without saying that I agree with them.

Lord Glenamara

My Lords, as someone who is associated with one of the biggest polytechnics in the country, if not the biggest, I agree with the Government's objective. However, will this not be retrospective legislation of the most serious kind? Does it not mean that any contract for the sale of land entered into between midnight tonight and the date of Royal Assent, which may be in January or February next year, will be negated and void? Is that not a departure from the usual situation?

I recollect many years ago speeches were made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about retrospective legislation. Before we debate this matter I shall look at those speeches in Hansard. This will be retrospective legislation of an extremely serious and far-reaching kind.

With regard to the local authorities, is it not a fact that of the three local authorities concerned two are large, Conservative-controlled county councils? I regard the proposals for ILEA as nothing more than spite against the Labour-controlled Inner London Education Authority.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, the interests of present and future students must be paramount. It is the Government's duty to take whatever action is necessary to prevent damage to the quality and effectiveness of this key sector of higher education. My right honourable friend must act to prevent the threat posed by a small number of irresponsible authorities.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn

My Lords, the Minister refers to a small number of local authorities. We should like to know which those are. It is no good saying that the Secretary of State has evidence without telling us which authorities they are.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, in the circumstances I shall pass on the noble Lord's comments to my right honourable friend.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn

My Lords, that is not fair. The noble Earl should tell the House.

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

My Lords, surely it is unfair to ask the Minister to deliver in this House information which must be given by the Secretary of State and nobody else.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that interruption.

Lord Glenamara

My Lords, we are not asking the Minister. We are asking the Government and the noble Earl is speaking for the Government. We ask him again to tell us which are the local authorities.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I must repeat that I shall pass on the concerns, anxieties and questions of noble Lords to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, is this not a criticism of the timing of the Statement? In normal circumstances, other than immediately before the Recess, it would be possible and necessary for us to put down questions to the Government requiring an answer to these entirely proper questions. Those questions would then have to be answered by the Minister, the Secretary of State or any other spokesman for the Government. The choice of the day before the Recess and Royal Assent for this Statement makes that clearly impossible for a period of three months. Is that not a derogation of duty on the part of the. Government as a whole?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I do not think it is. These decisions were taken by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in view of the circumstances he had at hand and particularly in view of the fact there was about to be a three months' Recess.

Lord Diamond

My Lords, is the Minister aware that some noble Lords strongly disagree with the proposition that what is proper for a representative of the Government to say in another place is improper for a representative of the Government to say in this place?

Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

My Lords, surely that is not the point. Everybody knows that my noble friend Lord Arran has to consult the Secretary of State before he can speak on matters of government responsibility. It is utterly unfair to a fairly new Minister to try to put him into this position and it is also unconstitutional.

Noble Lords

Absolute nonsense.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, once again I agree and I am grateful to my noble and learned friend.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the Secretary of State in answering questions on this Statement in the other place this afternoon was challenged on exactly this point. He gave one name, Nottinghamshire. Was that name not available to the noble Earl? Has he not had the same briefing material as the Secretary of State in order to answer questions relating to the Statement? May I remind him that the Statement itself says, "a small number of local authorities", and it therefore invites that question? Is it not the responsibility of government as a whole to have the same briefing material, the same possibility of an answer and the same possibility of satisfying the legitimate requirements of this House in this House as in another place?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, I confess that I understand that Nottinghamshire was one of the areas. I know of no others.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn

My Lords, we are not attacking the Minister who is replying for the Government. We are saying that we expected the Government to anticipate what was going to be asked of them from these and other Benches. On this side of the House we have not welcomed the Government's proposals but we have gone a long way towards agreeing with them. There are 104 education authorities in England and Wales, and we should like to know which are the guilty ones; no more than that. Surely it could have been anticipated by the Government that this would be one of the questions coming from these Benches.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, it is easier for the Opposition to have an idea of anticipated questions than one's own Benches.

Lord Hunt

My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Earl, as a new Minister, that if he is not prepared to reveal the names and particulars of certain local authorities which are under strong government criticism and doubt he is very unwise to mention the subject at all?

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I cannot agree with that remark. This subject needed mentioning and mentioning urgently.