Lords Sitting of 14 January 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

The Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich
John, Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Ripon and the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Sri Lanka
2.44 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What role they favour for the Commonwealth in helping to resolve the civil conflict in Sri Lanka.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we welcome any efforts to resolve the conflict in Sri Lanka. We understand that an Australian offer to help promote Commonwealth mediation, first made in 1990, has recently been renewed. However, the Sri Lankan Government have said that they consider it unnecessary to seek international mediation at this stage. Efforts to seek a political solution are at present being made within Sri Lanka by a parliamentary Select Committee and in an initiative by the Tourism Minister, Mr. Thondaman.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the situation remains grim, with more than a million people displaced by the fighting, more than a million people trapped in the peninsular in the north, acute food and medical shortages, alarming numbers of displaced people and escalating military expenditure? Is not the time now ripe for the Government to launch a new initiative, either in the UN Security Council or at the forthcoming aid consortium meeting in Paris on 7th February, with a view to resolving this terrible crisis?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord's description of the conditions in that country is correct. His description of the situation as grim is apt. However, there are limits to what any mediator can do unless the parties to the dispute are willing to accept mediation.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, have the Government considered co-operation with other countries which are major donors of aid to Sri Lanka to bring some pressure to bear on the government of Sri Lanka in order to achieve the aim suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Judd? Does the replacement of our High Commissioner, who was a consistent champion
108
of human rights in Sri Lanka, at the request of the Sri Lankan Government indicate any weakening of our interest in the field of human rights?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, regarding the noble Lord's first question, we still believe that there could be a role for the Commonwealth in principle. At the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Harare last October the Commonwealth agreed to place emphasis on good government, including human rights, in its future programme of work. The details are still being worked out. Regarding the second question, we feel on balance that it has been best to appoint a new High Commissioner. We feel that he will be just as robust as his predecessor.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in view of our significant historical relationship with Sri Lanka and that part of the world, and bearing in mind the feelings of the Australian people regarding the crisis, are the Government prepared to discuss the proposals put forward by the Australians, who feel strongly about the matter, and to ensure that the British contribution is a real one?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we would speak to anybody if we thought that it would provide a solution. However, I cannot avoid repeating that until the parties to the dispute—and this goes for both sides—are willing to accept mediation I cannot express very much hope.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not only the erosion of human rights and the violence in Sri Lanka which are causing concern but also the erosion of the democratic principle? In the light of that fact will he say what is the Government's attitude towards aid to Sri Lanka?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, British gross bilateral aid to Sri Lanka amounted to £23.6 million in 1989 and £17.1 million in 1990, the reduction being due to the difficulty of disbursement owing to hostilities. Since human rights have long been an important consideration in our aid programme I can tell the right reverend Prelate that in July we withdrew a conditional offer of £3 million in balance of payments aid because of Sri Lanka's human rights record. Such a policy will persist until the situation improves.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the second question raised by my noble friend Lord Judd about the possible role of the United Nations? Do Her Majesty's Government believe that the United Nations has a role in this particular instance and, if so, what should it be?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we do not believe that the United Nations or anyone else can have a role as mediator until the parties to the dispute accept such a role.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, as Britain has the chairmanship of the Security Council this month would this not be a good moment for us to try to bring

109
the greater authority of the United Nations to the problem in the hope of bringing the two parties together?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am certainly prepared to pass on that suggestion to my right honourable friend for consideration.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does not the noble Lord feel that on reflection his remarks in the House this afternoon have been rather fatalistic? In view of the initiative shown by the Government in Afghanistan, for example, and that shown by Secretary Baker in the Middle East, would it not be good to hear that the Government were vigorously and tirelessly pursuing the task of bringing the parties together in order to achieve a settlement?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I should dearly love to be more optimistic about the situation in Sri Lanka. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that we shall do anything that is in our power to improve the situation in Sri Lanka.

East Timor
2.51 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken over the assault on a British citizen in Dili, East Timor, on 12th November.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, Her Majesty's ambassador in Jakarta made immediate representations to the Indonesian authorities on 12th November following reports that two British journalists had been detained. He later received assurances that they were not being held. My noble friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs also raised the matter with the Indonesian ambassador on 13th November.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a British photographer, Stephen Cox, was not only arrested but beaten by the Indonesian police on 12th November? Is this not a case in which Her Majesty's Government should take action to protect a British citizen? Furthermore, is the noble Lord aware that, according to first-hand eye witness accounts by journalists on the spot, British machines were being used by the police and army during that massacre on 12th November? Does the noble Lord agree that the British Government should not supply any military equipment to a state that was declared an aggressor by the United Nations 15 years ago?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we became aware that Mr. Cox had been detained and beaten by Indonesian soldiers when the matter was reported by a colleague, by which time Mr. Cox had already left East Timor. We are deeply disturbed by those events, although a commission of inquiry has been set up by the Indonesian Government to look into the matter and we have evidence that it has a fairly earnest intent.
110
As regards the question of arms, I believe that the machines to which the noble Lord referred may have been Land Rovers which are about 23 years old. I do not think that that amounts to us aiding the arms situation in that part of the world.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the current inquiry—I gather that it has not as yet been concluded—has been supported by the United States Secretary of State's department, the Australian ambassador and the European Commission as an inquiry which is being held with integrity and that they do not regard it as a whitewash?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, my noble friend is well-informed on this matter. The commission of inquiry appears to be a serious body with integrity. I believe that two officers involved in the incident at Dili have already been dismissed, as have others, and there is evidence of charges outstanding.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the instance that we are discussing—the shooting of unarmed civilians in East Timor—is only one of a series of such incidents in East Timor and elsewhere in Indonesia since 1965 when there were truly grotesque events in Indonesia in which 500,000 people died and from which the present government emerged? Is it defensible to continue to provide aid and particularly to sell arms to such a regime, given that aid to newly emergent nations—for instance, the republics of the former Soviet Union—is dependent on their progress towards democracy and their reputation for human rights?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's view about the situation over a period of years and the violence and deterioration of human rights. Of course, there is a political dimension to the matter. We do what we can with our friends and partners to influence the Indonesian authorities. Our paramount concern is that those incidents are not repeated and we are currently in discussion with our European partners in the hope of trying to move the issue forward. With regard to arms, all countries have a sovereign right under the United Nations charter to secure the means of their own defence and this country is no exception.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is it possible to take stronger action at the United Nations to halt the mass genocide carried out by the Indonesian authorities in East Timor? It is far worse than what is happening to the Kurds.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I do not think that I can add to what I have said on the matter. We are doing all we can with our partners and I do not believe that there is a further role for the United Nations.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may return to that point. Bearing in mind that Her Majesty's Government have never recognised the right of Indonesia to occupy East Timor, is it not precisely to

111
the United Nations Security Council that the issue should now be referred? Secondly, on the noble Lord's reply on arms, he will recall that on 25th November when the issue was raised in the House, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, at col. 1149:
"we do not allow the export of arms and equipment likely to be used for repressive purposes against civil populations".
Now that we know that British arms have been used for that purpose, will the noble Lord review the point that I made in that debate; namely, that we should now consider stopping the supply of arms to Indonesia altogether while that situation continues?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, on the noble Lord's first point, we must pursue the line that we are taking at present with our European partners, because a European partner is involved here. On the noble Lord's second point, I do not accept that arms are being used for the purpose of repressing the local population. Arms sales are selected on the basis that they cannot be used for those purposes.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that there is profound misgiving about the danger of British arms being used in the repressive massacres that repeatedly occur in Indonesia? Is it not high time that there was a new drive for a settlement on the basis of UN Resolutions 384 and 389? Do not the Government feel able to raise the matter as one of profound urgency at the special summit meeting of the Security Council on 31st January? There is a difficulty here because the Government are winning support for their stand on democracy and human rights in their aid relationships, but they appear to be being rather selective by not including Indonesia in that thrust.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the resolutions to which the noble Lord referred are not included under Chapter 7 and are therefore not mandatory. We continue to take an interest and we believe that the course that we are taking will be the best possible way in which to advance the issue.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Lord said that those resolutions are not mandatory. In the light of what has happened and what is now known throughout the world to have happened, is it not the task of the British Government to go to the Security Council and make them mandatory, or at least to give a lead in making them mandatory? Does he agree with the new Secretary-General of the United Nations that the United Nations should now set up an international investigation into the massacre?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, as I said, there has been an investigation into the massacre. However, as regards our attitude to the resolutions, we went along with the majority of members of the European Community and abstained on all the UN resolutions passed in subsequent debates because we felt that that would help the process of reconciliation in the search for a diplomatic solution between Indonesia and Portugal. That point should not be underestimated.

Coal Industry: Future
3 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to preserve the British coal industry.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the Government's aim is to secure the largest economic coal industry that the market can support. The best way of achieving that is to give the industry and its workforce the chance to develop its full potential outside the constraints of the public sector.
Lord Jay: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one of this country's greatest national assets is the possession of 200 years' supply of high quality coal? Are the Government content to let the industry wither away without adequate support as seems to be happening now?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord can hardly say that it is withering away for lack of support. I should point out that at today's prices the last Labour Administration spent £1.49 billion in five years, compared with £22.7 billion under the present Administration.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this country now imports 15 million tonnes of cheap coal each year? Is he further aware that recently, as a result of the Coal Industry Act enacted by this Government, opencast coal mining has been expanded to the extent that there are now 64 sites working? Does he agree that the Rothschild Report to the Government suggested a cut of 30,000 jobs, with only 14 coal mines to remain viable? Does not the Government's Coal Industry Bill herald a pit closure programme of another 30 pits on top of the 158 pits that have closed since they came to office? Will he admit that this is a policy of decimation and not preservation of the deep mine coal industry? Finally, why are the Government so cruel to the coal mining community, denying it £109 million of RECHAR money from the European Regional Development Fund, which was described by the Secretary of State for the Environment as an untenable position and which cannot be defended?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the future size of the British coal industry will depend on its ability to secure contracts with electricity generators. That will be critically dependent on its ability to improve productivity and reduce its unit costs. I believe that the industry has the technology, the investment and above all the workforce to face up successfully to the challenges of the future. The industry has already made considerable progress in productivity, which has more than doubled compared with pre-strike levels and is now the highest in Europe.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, intimated, coal represents the major energy reserves that this country possesses? Does he further agree that, in order to make sure that we use those reserves efficiently and in

113
conformity with new environmental requirements, we should put every possible effort into developing clean coal technologies? Will he indicate the Government's attitude to that view?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the noble Lord has forgotten more about coal than I shall ever learn. Certainly, there are enormous reserves of coal. We want to produce coal efficiently and effectively because that is the best way to preserve that long-term asset. The noble Lord is right; research and development is important. We attach enormous importance to clean coal technology in the United Kingdom and acknowledge its role, alongside that of industry, in ensuring that research and development takes place. Careful consideration will be given to the future of clean coal technology and its long-term funding in the context of British Coal privatisation. In a recent initiative we announced new projects with a contract value of £20 million and we plan to introduce a number of other collaborative research projects over the next year.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that recently the Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Wakeham, protested to the European Commission about the German Government funding their own uneconomic pits when it would be more competitive for them to use the cheaper, British coal? Why, then, do the Government persist in allowing imported coal into this country in increasing amounts? Why do they not follow the course suggested earlier by my noble friend Lord Mason?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we have no intention of controlling coal imports. I know that it is part of the policy of the party opposite to effect such controls. It remains to be seen, presumably in the run-up to the election, whether it will take account of the fact that that is probably outside the law and certainly outside the spirit of the law. Meanwhile, such as one can tell about Labour Party policy on energy—phasing out nuclear energy, control of imports and so on—together with its environmental aspirations, it would be bad for industry, bad for the consumer, bad for the environment and bad for the nation.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether it is true that the Frances Colliery in Scotland is about to be reopened and that it produces cleaner coal than most?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Lady's question, but I shall certainly inquire into the matter and let her know.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government have no power to compel the generators to renew with British Coal the contracts which expire in March next year? If the generators do not renew those contracts, which, incidentally, account for 80 per cent. of the production of British Coal, will it not mean the wholesale closure of pits and the loss of thousands of jobs? Even more important, will there not be a lack of security in the
114
provision of coal and will not the coal industry disappear for ever? Does he not agree that the Government should intervene immediately?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, we have every confidence that British Coal will be capable of obtaining a sufficient volume of business from the generators. We believe in diversity and so, I believe, does British Coal. We are confident that it will move forward, as it has done since this Government have been in power.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the deficit on Britain's fuel trade was around £700 million last year compared with a surplus of over £6 billion a few years ago? Does he agree that that arises primarily from record imports of coal and the highest imports of oil since 1980? Does he further agree that that is indefensible in a country which has the largest natural resources of coal, oil and gas in the EC? Is there not needed a policy for the sensible use and depletion of our energy supplies that does not contain the massacre of the coal industry?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: It is not indefensible at all, my Lords. I shall proceed to defend it. The deficit arose largely from the massive programme of safety and maintenance work in the North Sea following the Piper Alpha disaster. Full figures for 1991 are not yet available, but for the first nine months of the year net imports of fuels amounted to 13 million tonnes of oil equivalent. For the third quarter of 1991 there was a trading surplus of £70 million and that is likely to be repeated in the final quarter. So the overall deficit for the year is unlikely to exceed £100 million. Future production looks like being up and will soon restore the fuel trade balance.
Lord Jay: My Lords, does the noble Lord consider it sensible that the Government subsidise our nuclear power industry and the German Government heavily subsidise their coal industry, yet we give no similar support to our coal industry?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I do not see why we need follow the example of Germany.

GATT: Uruguay Round
3.8 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current position in respect of negotiations in the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Reay): My Lords, the Director General of the GATT, Mr. Dunkel, issued a draft final agreement for the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations on 20th December. Following a meeting in Geneva yesterday at which parties gave their initial response to the text, there will now be further intensive negotiations. We hope that these will enable the round to be concluded very shortly. We believe that the final

115
agreement must be on terms close to Mr. Dunkel's text. Such an agreement would bring considerable benefits to the United Kingdom and to the world economy.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people who have studied what has been happening on this round are deeply depressed by the unwillingness of some of our European friends to compromise in respect of agricultural support? Is he further aware of the fact that a failure of the round would have disastrous consequences for the economy of the world and almost certainly lead to another world recession?
Lord Reay: My Lords, I agree indeed that a successful conclusion would provide a substantial stimulus to the economy and that a failure would be disastrous for the world economy. It would risk a loss of faith in GATT and a slide back into protectionism and inward-looking trade blocs.
With regard to my noble friend's first question, it is only fair to say that most member states have difficulties with the agricultural text, including ourselves.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on these Benches most strongly support the determination to bring the Uruguay discussions to a successful conclusion? We entirely agree with the Government that few things could be more fatal for the future prosperity of the world, including this country, than the failure of the Uruguay Round.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her support.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the principal item in dispute, in particular between the United States and the European Community, relates to the quite unconscionable level of export subsidies, which are now a great burden on the United Kingdom population both in terms of price and of taxation? Will the noble Lord ensure that a message is sent to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister that the country expects a more heavyweight participation in those discussions in order to ensure that this ridiculous common agricultural provision is abolished in order that there can be agreement for the wider interest to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred?
Lord Reay: My Lords, the European Community will be seeking changes to redress imbalance in proposed reductions in different areas of agricultural support. Cuts in domestic support and in import protection and export subsidies need to be better balanced than they are in the Dunkel text. How that should be done is a matter for the negotiators. We do not think that the problems are insurmountable and they should not be allowed to stand in the way of an agreement.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it takes two to tango and that we should regard the remarks on agriculture made by President
116
Bush in Kansas City in the context of his domestic political problems? We should not allow contemplation of the failure of the Uruguay Round purely in order to support European or American farmers. The real issues are much closer to those which President Bush went to Tokyo to discuss with the Japanese. We must move away from the narrow consideration of agriculture alone as regards the success or failure of the round.
Lord Reay: My Lords, President Bush's reported remarks in his speech in Kansas yesterday were made in the context of a strong plea for free and fair trade. He emphasised the need for a GATT agreement. As the President acknowledged, the United States too will have to make cuts in agricultural subsidies.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not clear that intervention at the highest level is now required to get the Uruguay Round passed? As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, it is essential that the discussions should be brought to a successful conclusion. Did not the Prime Minister say recently that he would be prepared to convene a meeting of the G7 countries in order to make sure that the Uruguay Round was passed? Has that request been made? When will the meeting take place?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we agree that an agreement should be reached. The European Commission is negotiating on behalf of the Community. However, we have been arguing strongly for an agreement close to the terms of Mr. Dunkel's text and have consistently urged the European Community to adopt a constructive attitude. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has continued to take a close personal interest in the progress of negotiations and has remained in contact with a number of other heads of government on the matter.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, despite the universal enthusiasm for the conclusion of a successful GATT Round, I trust and hope that the Government are aware that the projected agreement initiated by Mr. MacSharry is grossly unfair to British agriculture and would result in penalising the most efficient sector of British agriculture. Will he say what progress has been made to modulate this unfortunate modulation?
Lord Reay: My Lords, we are trying to impress on all member states the importance of a GATT agreement covering all areas of the negotiations.

Business
3.15 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the Further and Higher Education Bill will be adjourned at about 7.30 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill will be taken.

Business of the House: Debates, 20th January
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with to enable the Motions standing in the names of the Lord Molloy and the Lord Jenkins of Putney to be taken before the Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.] on Monday 20th January.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Taxation of Chargeable Gains Bill [H.L.]
3.16 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill consolidates the enactment relating to taxation and chargeable gains presently found in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, the Capital Gains Tax Act 1979 and in annual Finance Acts from 1970 onwards. This consolidation Bill, which re-enacts legislation providing for the taxation of the chargeable gains accruing both to individuals and to companies, will therefore serve the useful purpose of restating the current law but in a readily accessible form.
The Bill has been drafted by a former parliamentary counsel engaged by the Law Commission and is another example of the outstanding efforts of the Commission in keeping the statute book in good order.
If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Lord Chancellor one question. He says that the Bill will restate the law in a more accessible form. May we also be assured that it will also be in a more understandable form?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the principle of consolidation is to restate the existing law. That is what the Bill does. The form in which it is stated, and the structure of the Bill, help understanding. Therefore I believe that I can fairly claim that it is a move towards a more understandable form of legislation also.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may at once from these Benches re-echo the compliment that the noble and learned Lord most properly paid to the Law Commission. However, I believe that a Bill which has six parts, 12 schedules and 291 clauses and consists of 320 pages ought at least to be debated for a few minutes in your Lordships' House. I confess at once
118
that I have not read every single clause, although I am absolutely sure that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has.
It is interesting to note that we have a good custom, especially in complicated legislation, which provides that derivation clauses are set out in a table. The Bill has a derivation table. The Bill deals with matters of taxation. Those who are engaged professionally in regard to taxation matters—I refer in particular to lawyers and accountants—are a little worried, to say the least, that while there is a derivation table there is no destination table. Those who practise in taxation law have become accustomed over the years to quoting sections as covering principles in our legislation in regard to taxation. If one has no destination table, and having become accustomed over the years to talk about a Section x case, one has to undertake a tremendous amount of work to find out what has happened to that section to which one has become accustomed over the years.
The joint committee which deals with this matter with great patience and ability consists of Members of both Houses. I wish to make a plea to the joint committee for consideration to be given to providing a destination table in addition to the derivation table. That is no new concept; there are Bills dealing with similar matters which have destination tables.
I have already mentioned the Law Commission, as did the noble and learned Lord. From these Benches I wish to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who has seen under his reign a great deal of consolidation. That has helped a great deal in ensuring that understanding of the statute law is simplified by the need to look at only one statute. However, the noble and learned Lord's good work is not recognised sufficiently only because not enough advanced publicity is given to the fact of these consolidation statutes coming before Parliament. That is true in particular of this consolidation Bill. I have talked to many accountants and representatives of the institute. Until I told them about the Bill they did not even realise that it was about to come before your Lordships' House. I urge that in future more advanced publicity should be given to consolidation Bills, especially when they affect the whole of the profession dealing with the subject.
I make my next point with some temerity. It relates to the title of the Bill, which the Committee may consider. Technically it is correct but I suggest that it is slightly cumbersome. To my simple mind and to the much less simple minds of others, the title "Capital Gains Tax Act 1992" might be more readily acceptable.
Finally, I plead for a little more consolidation. The House may know that the law relating to stamp duty dates back to a statute of 1891. Since then so much has happened in relation to stamp duty that it cries out for consolidation—I hope not in the wilderness but in the ears of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for ready acceptance.
I make those comments in regard to a Bill which will be tremendously useful. One hopes that various other fields of taxation, if not a whole comprehensive

119
consolidation Bill dealing with taxation, will be readily acceptable before your Lordships' House as this Bill undoubtedly is.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I broadly agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but wish to add one or two comments. First, I heartily congratulate the noble and learned Lord and the Law Commission on the work done in this consolidation. It was a mammoth task. Unlike other noble Lords, I believe, I have here the two volumes of 319 pages which have resulted from the work. This admirable production is a remarkable job and uses many modern techniques. However, there is a price to be paid.
I follow to some extent what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in pointing out the effect on practitioners. They must use textbooks and digests. All those relating to the law on capital gains must be rewritten, revised and republished at considerable expense to the practitioners. One must bear in mind that that is the price one pays for simplification. The repeals of existing legislation occupy only some three pages of the Bill, so in that respect one is not gaining a great deal. On the other hand, practitioners must buy new books of considerable length which will contain the new legislation. No doubt in the end we shall be glad that the job has been done, but that is the price that must be paid.
Again I follow to some extent what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in pointing out that the other consequence of the consolidation is beneficial. It enables your Lordships and Members of the other place to see for the first time what the capital gains legislation amounts to. There are two volumes consisting of 319 pages. It is legislation of unimaginable complexity. It is absolutely impossible for the ordinary citizen to understand. It is impossible for many accountants to understand. Indeed, as I know from personal experience, it is also impossible for the officials of the Inland Revenue to understand. I know that that is not the fault of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor; it is not his responsibility. However, perhaps I may enter a plea that he should use his great influence on his colleagues to ascertain whether the legislation can be simplified.
When one imposes a draconian tax—and this is the most draconian tax of its kind in the Western world—one becomes involved in complications. Sections are piled upon sections and schedules are piled upon schedules in order to deal with supposed cases of evasion. No doubt that is to some extent unavoidable. However, we now have a monster tax which in 25 years of its 26-year existence has outgrown the possibility of being handled. The noble and learned Lord would render a great service by persuading his colleagues in the Inland Revenue and in the Treasury to produce a simpler, more comprehensible and more compact tax.
I welcome the production of these volumes. At the same time one must recognise that one must pay a price and that the unfortunate taxpayer and his advisers are landed with a Frankenstein's monster that they must use.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may first deal with the last point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. I agree that it is a desirable aim to simplify the tax system. Early in the 1970s I had the honour of being appointed to a committee set up under the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Iain Macleod. Its task was to simplify the tax system. It laboured for a while, subsequently without my membership, and the current tax system is the result. Simplification is not easy but I understand the plea that is made. In so far as I have influence in such matters I have always sought to aim for simplification in the taxation field. The decisions of the courts can sometimes help in that direction and can also indicate other areas of possible complexity.
I acknowledge that any consolidation will have an effect on the textbooks. That is unavoidable, but it is a question of balance. Obviously one wishes to opt for consolidation when the result is likely to be sufficiently beneficial to justify that price.
I shall keep in mind the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about a table of destination. It is always a sign that a practitioner is ageing a little when he has to refer to an old section that has been replaced. However, I well understand the need for a table. I am also grateful for the point that the noble Lord made about advanced publicity. I shall consider whether we should do more in that connection. In the preparation of consolidations the professional bodies are consulted. When consulting with the various committees of the membership not all professional bodies are equally good at telling their members what is going on.
As regards the title of the Act, I suspect that that has to do with a distinction between the capital gains of companies and individuals but I shall certainly look at that point as, no doubt, will the Committee.
Finally, I should welcome a consolidation and, possibly, a simplification of stamp duty legislation as part of the process. I am grateful for the general reception which the Bill has received and I commend it to the House.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, if a layman may have a consolidated point of view, it is that it is about time that we scrapped the tax on capital gains and replaced it with relief on capital losses.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the noble Lord, with all his experience of the taxation system, make that point. I am glad to think that such a point of view may be feasible.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it is the practice of both Houses of Parliament on the Second Reading of a consolidation Bill to discuss nothing except the desirability of consolidation and, at later stages, nothing except whether the consolidation represents the pre-existing law subject to any modifications permissible under the statute setting up the Law Commission.
I agree with most of what has been said today but a good deal has strayed rather beyond the line which has been laid down in the past. The reason that it has been laid down is that experience has shown that when

121
the merits and substance of what is consolidated are under discussion, the whole process of consolidation comes to an end. I venture to suggest that we should all be very careful not to stray beyond the line set by our predecessors.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Radioactive Substances Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill consolidates the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 as subsequently amended. The 1960 Act was heavily amended by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and, although these amendments were textual amendments, they did not fit easily into the original structure of the 1960 Act. In the result, it has become difficult for the reader to find his way around the amended text of the 1960 Act. This consolidation is therefore greatly to be welcomed and I should like to express my appreciation, and I trust that of your Lordships also, for the work of the Law Commission and of the parliamentary draftsman in producing this Bill.
The Bill contains a number of corrections and minor improvements to the existing law which are needed in order to facilitate the consolidation. These are contained in a memorandum which I laid before Parliament on 16th December last pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. This memorandum, which will be considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, is similar in purpose to the reports of the Law Commissions which often recommend minor amendments to the existing law in order to achieve a satisfactory consolidation. However, since some of the matters covered are "transferred" matters for the purposes of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, the minor improvements have to be dealt with by memorandum under the 1949 Act rather than by inclusion in a Law Commission report.
If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, because of my respect and, indeed, affection for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and in view of his remarks, I shall say nothing.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The Further Education Funding Councils]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert ("for the purposes of exercising functions in respect of further education including the funding of adult education which does not fall to be incorporated within the calculation made by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 11(2A) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 70. There has been a great deal of anxiety about many aspects of the Bill, notably the proposals which allow the Secretary of State to interfere in the work of individual institutions in higher education. There has been more widespread anxiety in the country about the potentially damaging effects on adult education than about any other part of the Bill, including those courses relating to higher education.
The great value of adult education to the community is undoubted. It is central to the creation of a learning society, to the notion of lifelong education, which is something which we all wish to create. It is particularly important for those adults who did not have opportunities for post-school education—opportunities which are now available to many more young people than was true 25 or 30 years ago. Surely we should do all we can to encourage older people to return to study, to embrace the values of self improvement, to continue to be curious and to want to learn well into old age.
Adult education is particularly important for unemployed people. For some of them it is important as a way of keeping sane. For others, it is important as a method in the longer term of improving their qualifications and thereby their chance of obtaining a job. It is particularly important for the growing population of elderly and retired people in this country, many of whom may be bored, lonely, or both. It provides an opportunity for older people to keep in touch with other people, including younger members of the community, in a positive way. Indeed, it is vital to the quality of their lives and their own self images. Over more than a century we have built up opportunities for adult education and it would be a tragedy for our education system and, indeed, for the country if this Bill led to its long-term decline.
In September the Secretary of State announced, after many protests, that the Government had decided that the local education authorities would retain the duty to provide so-called leisure courses. I say as an aside that the division between leisure and vocational or academic courses is both impractical and arbitrary. As many other commentators on the Bill have said, students, not providers, decide the purpose of a course. Students on the same course may have very different aims. Moreover, their aims may change during the time in which they are undertaking the course.
Ministers have given assurances on several occasions that adult education fees need not rise because local education authorities will be left with

123
adequate financial support to maintain an equivalent level of provision within the reduced scope of their duties. However, anxiety remains among LEAs and those running and teaching in adult education institutions as to whether the funding will prove adequate, bearing in mind the current financial constraints and restrictions which LEAs are suffering.
The main justification for the amendment is that it gives legislative force to the undertakings given by Ministers. Therefore, the Government should have little difficulty in accepting it in principle.
There are two main reasons why the promise of the continuation of funding at present levels will not protect adult education if the Bill goes through in its present form. First, splitting responsibility for managing further education provision as a whole and allowing both schools and incorporated institutions the freedom to offer leisure services will remove the LEAs' scope for cross subsidy and economies of scale.
Schools and incorporated colleges will be able to improve their fee income by offering popular and cheap courses. By way of illustration, keep fit classes come into that category at marginal cost to the institution. On the other hand, LEAs will be left with a duty to provide the more expensive courses and to cater for those sections of the population without the ability to pay higher fees; for example, the elderly, the unemployed and single parents for whom, as I have already said, such courses serve a vital role. However, those courses will be at much higher unit costs. Current funding, which will be split according to the balance of provision that existed in 1989, will not cover those higher unit costs and, therefore, either fees will rise or provision will be lost.
The second point is that the standard spending assessment which is used to distribute government grants is currently based on data that does not include account of how much adult education is actually being provided. The expenditure blocks that include funding for adult education are taken partly by account of students on courses that fall within Schedule 2 to the Bill, and are thus to transfer to the new funding council, and partly according to the total adult population. Neither of those relate closely to the real needs of individual authorities.
The Department of Education and Science recently carried out a survey of LEAs to establish the current level of funding by local authorities on adult education. That has run into considerable difficulties which are being discussed by the DES and the local authority associations. Since LEAs currently do not divide the adult education provision that they make in the way that the Bill proposes, it is difficult for them to assess the level of spending according to those categories.
The amendment will require the Department of the Environment to modify the standard spending assessment system so that support of each local authority reflects the provision that they actually make. The issue of securing adequate funding for adult education is of great importance. It is obvious that it causes strong feeling among the general population. Eight major organisations representing the planners, providers and users of adult education
124
presented a petition on adult education to Parliament just before Christmas. It contained half a million signatures. It urged the Government to ensure a secure future for adult education.
I, and I am sure many other Members of your Lordships' House, received many letters and copies of hundreds of other letters sent to the Prime Minister, other Ministers and MPs protesting about the Government's plans in the Bill for adult education. However, by accepting the amendment the Government can demonstrate their commitment to adult education and thus reassure the many thousands of people who are anxious, and rightly anxious, that adult education will be seriously damaged when the Bill is enacted. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, many of us on this side of the House greatly sympathise with some of the intentions of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. Provision of adult education is of the greatest value. I know anxieties have been expressed in discussions in relation to the Bill that adult education may not be provided at an appropriate level. We therefore have every sympathy with the point.
Unfortunately, the amendment may not in every way be a prudent one. Amendment No. 70, which I believe we are also discussing, states:
"In respect of further education for which provision is made by local education authorities … the Secretary of State shall incorporate in any calculation of revenue support in relation to further education … the full amount of such provision".
I believe that amounts to the Secretary of State being obliged to sign a blank cheque; in other words, one group of people provides the provision in question and, if I do not misunderstand the amendment, a blank cheque is then picked up through the agency of the Secretary of State.
There clearly needs to be an adequate level of provision in the field of adult education. But it is not prudent to allow one providing authority to provide such provision as it sees fit and then expect another funding authority to foot the entire bill. In other words, one may find inappropriate, excessive, even profligate provision—though I accept that is not likely in every case—and the bill would still need to be picked up without there being any way of moderating it.
Although many of us feel considerable sympathy for he intentions of the amendment of the noble Baroness, one must doubt the prudence of allowing one agency to lay down what will happen and make the provision and inviting somebody else to foot the Bill. That may be the road to profligacy and does not seem to be appropriate.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like to express my strong support for the amendment. At the risk of repeating what has been said before on the matter in your Lordships' House I should like to point out the tremendous importance of adult education in this country, particularly for older people, pensioners and the unemployed. The opportunity it offers for people in unfortunate situations to get out of the home

125
one morning or one evening a week, to escape from the kitchen, from the TV or loneliness, is important. That is the social therapy of many courses run throughout the country. There is also the creative therapy; that is, the ability that it gives to people to discover talents and abilities which they perhaps never knew they had. A combination of social and creative therapy is of tremendous importance.
The other point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was that no outsider, least of all Her Majesty's Government, can possibly tell what is the intention of each student on any given course. Anne Risman of the Richmond Adult and Community College cites a number of instances of a Minister going round and being surprised at what he found. She mentioned a student of cookery, a student of voice production, another of French and one of sewing. When those people were questioned the student of cookery was found to be a chef who had been made redundant who was studying for his Cordon Bleu qualification. The student of voice production was found to be a resting actor. One knows that most actors spend most of their time resting, but he was studying for his next lucky break. The student of French was a retired army major turned tour guide who wanted to improve his French. The student of sewing was a seamstress from the Royal Opera House who was taking extra lessons because she had an especially difficult task on hand. Those people were not simply enjoying leisure activities. One never knows at what they may be aiming until they are questioned in detail.
I have first-hand experience of adult education and perhaps I may be allowed to be anecdotal for a moment. In my home town of Rye we have a flourishing adult education centre. It gave rise to a society of amateur artists called The Tuesday Painters. They are called The Tuesday Painters because they first studied in an adult education class on Tuesdays. In the summer they held a large exhibition and around 400 pictures were exhibited, of which 99 were sold and just short of £6,000 made. That is an enjoyable leisure activity but it is also profitable. I can say that because two of the pictures were my own, and I say that in all modesty.
The adult education centre in Rye is entirely self-supporting. However, for the current year, the fees have had to be nearly doubled. As a result, regrettably, there has been a marked drop in the number of students. In the Hastings area as a whole the drop has been as much as 10 per cent. Rye is a rural area which has been particularly hit by the recession. The drop in the number of students there has been as great as 17 per cent.
The fear is that the funds will no longer be available for this very important aspect of the health and happiness of our retired and unemployed people. The trouble is that those most in need are those who are least able to afford the fees. A statutory commitment such as that proposed in the amendment would be a reassurance to many thousands of people who feel
126
very strongly about this matter and from whom, as the noble Baroness said, we have heard. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I oppose this amendment. Apart from the blank cheque consideration to which reference has been made by my noble friend Lord Renfrew, surely this amendment creates a kind of disparity of provision. As regards Amendment No. 70, one has the blank cheque provision for the LEA and the full cost of the provision, whereas control by the Secretary of State of the finances of the funding councils, as I understand it, lies within his remit. Does the amendment not run against the grain of the Bill? Surely the intention of the Government is for the Bill to establish the funding councils within their province and to leave the LEAs with some of what was their province. The effect of the amendment is to reverse—that may be right or wrong—the intendment of the Bill.
Although I share every single aspiration so eloquently and beautifully expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the point made about creative therapy, and understand all that, surely what is proposed is contrary to one of the principles of the Bill, which, as I understand it, is to bring training within the funding councils. That is a very important asset of social and economic life today.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may take a moment to clarify what the amendment is about, since there appears to be some misunderstanding. I would like to take noble Lords back to the origins of this matter. The Government published a discussion paper on the subject in which they said in terms that leisure courses not leading to a qualification would be charged at full cost. I asked a question of the Minister and I was assured that that was the case. There was a great uproar and the Government said that that was not what they meant at all, although that is what they had said. They went on to say that local authorities could subsidise leisure courses not leading to qualification because everyone saw that that was one of the more successful parts of the British education system.
In her amendment, my noble friend Lady Blackstone does not ask for a blank cheque but for support for this provision. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the further education funding councils do not have within their remit the subsidy of adult leisure courses, so that this amendment has nothing to do with that part of the Bill nor with the FEFCs' freedom and independence. This amendment is concerned with something which is quite specific and something to which the noble Lord said that he was sympathetic.
Perhaps I may give noble Lords an example of what the Bill does. If the Bill is passed as it stands, I can envisage a noble Lord rising at Question Time and asking about the ending of a particularly valuable course within some local authority. It might be an adult leisure course of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, has referred. The Minister would reply by saying that the matter had nothing to do with the Government. He would say that councils had the

127
power to spend the money, but, if they did not have the money or did not choose to spend it, that was up to them. Those of us who have had experience of your Lordships' House in recent years would expect that to be exactly the answer that the Government would give.
The point of my noble friend's amendment is to say, "No, what is reasonable is for the funds to be provided by the Secretary of State". It does not, I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, provide for a blank cheque because it does not remotely give local authorities the opportunity to spend what they like. However, it obliges the Secretary of State to find funds to support a course where a case for it has been made. That is what the amendment seeks to do within the current levels of provision. It is a reasonable amendment and one that has not yet been rebutted.
The amendment calls the Government's bluff. It says to the Government, "You say that you favour these leisure courses, and that you were misunderstood in your earlier discussion paper. Now let it be made clear beyond peradventure that you really do believe in these leisure courses and you are not saying that they have to be provided only at full cost—which can be enormously expensive—and that the Secretary of State will recognise that fact in setting the level of support for local authorities". That is all the amendment is about. It is not a major issue in terms of public finance but it is a major issue in terms of adult education.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, we are at the Report stage and I appreciate that the noble Lord cannot reply to me but I really think he has made a rather strange point coming from a party which we understand aspires to government in suggesting that Amendment No. 70 is a suitable one to move when it provides that:
"the Secretary of State shall incorporate in any calculation of revenue support … the full amount of such provision".
The blank cheque to which my noble friend referred is, as I understood it, not a blank cheque provided by the local authorities but one written on to the face of the Bill to oblige the Secretary of State to pay out revenue support for everything deemed to be required. That seems to be a most extraordinary way to legislate.
The noble Lord is shaking his head. I may be misunderstanding, but that is how I read the provision. I go along with most of what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said about adult education. I have had a great deal to do with it, although not in England. I am an enormously strong believer in it. I believe that the funding of adult education should remain with local authorities. I am very glad that it is because local authorities are well placed to provide it and to work out what is required. I repeat: whatever the noble Lord says, Amendment No. 70 states that,
"the Secretary of State shall incorporate in any calculation of revenue support … the full amount of such provision".
Earl Russell: My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lady Seear, whose name is added to the amendment, perhaps I may add a word or two. My noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee and I speak on behalf of a party which has a commitment to the
128
ideal of education for life. That was reaffirmed by my right honourable friend Mr. Ashdown as recently as last week. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, have said. I see why they are concerned about the providers deciding the amount to be spent. The difficulty is that the providers are the only ones who know the actual costs.
I believe that in the next Parliament all of us on all sides of the House will have to think again about methods of financing the public services. What I am not convinced about is that we yet have an adequate substitute in place for the matters about which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness complain. The alternative that we have before us is the funding council method of finance. Having personal experience of that, about which I have declared an interest, I am not convinced that that system is a success. The essence of that method is that the Secretary of State not merely decides how much is to be spent, but also what the purchasing power of that money shall be. He decides how many units shall be supplied for it.
That is the command economy system of funding. If there are defects in blank cheques there are even greater defects in the command economy. In fact, I have come to think of the funding council system in recent weeks as the Aeroflot system of funding. It seems to me to be producing very much the same effect. So I think the system proposed by the amendment should be left in place for the time being because at least it does not destroy the service, unlike any other model yet in place. But more thinking is needed, as I shall be the first to say, and to repeat, and to attempt to join in whenever possible.
I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said about the amount of correspondence on this subject. I have received more correspondence on this part of the Bill than anything else which has been, before your Lordships' House since the restrictions on political activity by employees of local authorities. Your Lordships may remember that this House defeated the Government on that issue and another place, in its wisdom, decided to accept the defeat. I hope we may take that as a precedent.
I entirely agree with what everyone has said about the impossibility of the Government's distinction between leisure and educational courses. Last time I taught an adult education course most of the people there I thought regarded it as a leisure course. I came out of it with a new Ph.D student of the very highest quality.
We must think again, with an ageing population, about the ages at which people start jobs. I recall a Bill moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, about age discrimination in employment. Regrettably that did not reach the statute book, but the questions addressed by the noble Baroness will have to be addressed again. We shall have to think again about the age at which people may start on a new career. We may find then that some subjects which appear to be purely leisure activities could lead to new careers. I think the Exchequer, of all bodies, might find a great deal of reason to welcome that.

129
One should also mention the qualification of informed citizenship for a democracy. Only this morning there is correspondence in the paper about the immense percentage of people—I think it is 65 per cent., though I quote from memory—who do not know what the letters RPI stand for. That is going to make life difficult for all of us in a little while. It is a good idea to have a system in place which helps to ameliorate that sort of ignorance.
The problem of standard spending assessments is one that needs a great deal of attention. I do not think that the present methods of calculating them are entirely satisfactory. A reinforcement in this area would be of value. The final argument I want to put is this: in a democracy is it wise to ignore a petition with half a million signatures?
4 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, let me say that I look forward to the day when provision for education in this country is excessive or profligate—a consummation devoutly to be wished yet extremely unlikely to happen while the Treasury exists. We are debating the consequence of a change in the institutions and arrangements for funding adult education by which, until very recently, people were not feeling threatened. It was not profligate, but what was there, say, two or three years ago, was felt by people to be valuable and adequate. It was not costing us the earth and it was not costing us infinite amounts of money. Therefore, even if cheques are blank they are not going to be for infinite amounts of money when they are finally written in.
We are talking about an arrangement to take care of one part of adult education which is causing great and unintended consequences for another part of adult education. We are saying through this amendment that it would be good if we could, as it were, get back to a sort of status quo ante, which people used to find satisfactory. That would give the local authorities the money to meet such demands from adult education as may arise from their point of view. It would be false—and I will not make the point—to say that a great deal of education is going to be profitable. Leisure education is good for itself. Our citizens want it, so let them have it. What is wrong with it? It is very valuable to be able to spend one's spare time—lots of spare time—learning about whatever one wants to learn about. If anything, our problem is that there is too little education, not too much. Therefore, I believe that to raise the spectre of blank cheques is quite false. We are not talking about large sums of money but about a muddled change which, if supplemented by this amendment, will at least restore such inadequate provision for adult education as we have.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we are discussing in this amendment an area of the Bill which, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is very important. Adult education provides opportunities for people of different ages and in different circumstances but they are always
130
opportunities. They may be for the young or they may be for the old; they may be for those who need some form of basic numeracy or literacy which can in itself bring them satisfaction and happiness in their lives or lead on, through progression, to other courses. They can be simply courses of a vocational nature which, in turn, can also lead to academic courses.
The noble Baroness was quite right in introducing this amendment to speak for a few minutes about the importance of adult education. It is because we recognise the importance of adult education that we are ensuring in this Bill that the full scope of the duty to provide further education in law is maintained and is placed upon the funding councils and the local education authorities. Incidentally, it is also the reason why we have given an assurance that the local education authorities will retain adequate financial support to carry out their duties.
I do not agree that fewer people are likely to attend courses in local education authority institutions as a result of the Bill. We would expect that the overall numbers of people undertaking further education will rise and we are in favour of adult education of all kinds. Incidentally, it is worth mentioning that I think I am right in saying that the numbers of young people who are taking A-Levels in further education colleges have continued to rise. As we all know, there are different reasons why young people between the ages of 16 and 19 feel that a moment has come in their lives when they would prefer to go into further education, and that applies so far as adult education is concerned.
The Department of Education and Science has not just relied upon words but has actually tried to do something about this in the context of the Bill. The department has been carrying out a survey of spending by local education authorities and will be conducting follow-up work and discussions with the LEA associations. Most local authorities, I am told, have successfully completed the survey forms and we are confident that it is a survey which will help us to ensure that the local education authorities are adequately funded for the future.
Despite that, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, who I know is very well informed on these matters, expressed the fear that nonetheless funds would not be available for the future. I give an assurance that in setting the overall level of revenue support grants for each financial year the Government will continue to take into account the level of LEA spending on further education just as the Government do now. I have to say, however, that the Government must also retain discretion to take account of the overall level of spending on local authority services every year which the nation can afford. However, it will be, as now, for local education authorities to determine the level of their expenditure on further education within the limits implied by annual RSG settlements and taking account of their clear statutory duty to secure the provision of adequate facilities for further education.
It was in that context that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has made it clear that local education authorities will not have to raise fees for further education as a result of the reforms contained in this

131
Bill. He quite clearly announced the intention that we shall leave within standard spending the resources attributable to the kinds of further education for which LEAs will continue to be responsible—an undertaking given towards the end of September by my right honourable friend and which I am very glad to repeat now.
I must not make it sound as if I did not listen to the detail of what the noble Baroness said about the problems of identifying exactly how much money there is and the way in which the standard spending assessments work. She feels that the amendment is necessary. I believe, however, that the amendment is fairly fatal on three grounds. First, it would place on the Government an entirely open-ended commitment to support, through RSG, expenditure on further education up to any level which local education authorities collectively chose to spend in any one year. If that is not a blank cheque, certainly it is a close cousin to one. My noble friends Lord Renfrew and Lord Campbell of Alloway were both justified in at least referring to that expression.
Secondly, the amendment would mean that the level of grant which an individual authority received for further education expenditure would be directly related to its overall spending on further education. In anyone's book that would undoubtedly reflect a clear disincentive to authorities to exercise their functions in the most cost-effective manner. Thirdly, it is a fundamental principle of our system of local government finance that revenue support grant is paid as a block without special protection for any particular service or part of a service. The principle is that local authorities make their own decisions about priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances, and they stand accountable to their electorates for the decisions they take. This principle would be completely breached if we legislated for special rules to apply to the payment of rate support grant for further education only.
The two sides of the House do not differ on the importance of adult education in the future. However, before I sit down I must underline again the important undertaking given by my right honourable friend. In leaving within standard spending the resources attributable to the kinds of further education for which LEAs will continue to be responsible he was quite clear that local education authorities would not have to raise fees for further education as a result of the reforms contained in the Bill. For that reason I believe that the amendment is not necessary. However, if the agreement were made, for the three reasons I gave a few moments ago I believe that it would have some very unfortunate consequences indeed.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask a question. I apologise for the fact that, for reasons over which I had little control, I was not present at the beginning of the debate. The noble Lord referred to the duty of local authorities to provide leisure activities. That is what I thought he said. The recognition that it is a duty on local authorities is of great importance. Am I right in
132
thinking that the noble Lord said that it is a duty and not merely that local authorities are permitted to provide for leisure activities?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I wrote to the noble Baroness on 28th November. I owe her an apology. When originally the letter was sent it did not fall into her hands.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I ask for belt and braces on this matter. I want to be absolutely certain.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as a result of that unfortunate incident I sent the noble Baroness a copy of the letter. She may remember that embedded in the mid le of page 2 were the words:
"Taken together these provisions impose on local education authorities a statutory duty to secure an adequate supply of those kinds of further education for adults not listed in Schedule 2, including most of what has traditionally been known as adult education".
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the Minister for reading those words. It is worth while getting the point into Hansard again, which was why I raised it.
Lord Desai: My Lords, may I ask a further question for clarification? Is that allowed?
Noble Lords: No.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, although I have to admit that I am somewhat disappointed by it. The purpose of the amendments is to secure the financial future of adult education and to reassure the many people involved in adult education, including those who provide it, that the necessary funds will be available to make it possible for adult education, including so-called leisure courses, to go on being provided at current levels.
As my noble friend Lord Desai has already said, the sums involved are relatively small in relation to the total education budget. All the remarks about profligacy are out of place. I cannot believe that it is in the interests of any local education authority to be profligate in its spending in an area such as this. That would lead the Government to want to take action to ensure that it did not happen. It seems to noble Lords on this side of the House that only through this pair of amendments can we ensure that adult education will be maintained at its current levels.
I was pleased to hear that the Minister expects overall numbers in adult education to rise. They certainly ought to rise because of the enormous value of this form of educational provision. However, it is the view of those who operate the system that not only will levels fail to rise but they will actually decline under present financial arrangements.
The amendment is not an open-ended commitment to alow huge sums of money to be spent. It is a commitment to support the levels of provision being made available by local education authorities to adults. It is perfectly possible within the amendment for the Government to have a ceiling on per capita spending on a specific course or range of courses being provided by local authorities. In that sense again there should be no disincentive in these amendments to

133
cost-effectiveness. Nor can I accept that local authorities, which have to determine their own priorities, and want to determine their own priorities, will do anything other than welcome an amendment of this kind. In the light of what the Minister said in his rather disappointing reply, I feel I have no option but to test the opinion of the House.
4.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 137.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Annan, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Judd, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kagan, L.

Banks, L.

Kennet, L.

Barnett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Birk, B.

Listowel, E.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

Longford, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mayhew, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mishcon, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mulley, L.

Combermere, V.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nicol, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Desai, L.

Phillips, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Rea, L.

Falkender, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Galpern, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Glenamara, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

[Teller.]

Soper, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Underhill, L.

Hollick, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hooson, L.

Whaddon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

White, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hughes, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Jacques, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Jay, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Astor, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Auckland, L.

Ampthill, L.

Balfour, E.

Arran, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

134

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Birdwood, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blake, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Blatch, B.

Mancroft, L.

Blyth, L.

Manton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mersey, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Monson, L.

Brookes, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mottistone, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Nelson, E.

Chalfont, L.

Newall, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Norfolk, D.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Onslow, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Orkney, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cross, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Pender, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elibank, L.

Quinton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Reay, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Richardson, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Flather, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fortescue, E.

Savile, L.

Gainford, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Geddes, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Greenway, L.

Stockton, E.

Gridley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strange, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harvington, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal,

Henley, L.

L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hives, L.

[Teller.]

Hood, V.

Strathspey, L.

Hooper, B.

Sudeley, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Terrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Teviot, L.

Ironside, L.

Teynham, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Joseph, L.

Trumpington, B.

Killearn, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Kimball, L.

Vivian, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Waddington, L.

Knollys, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wharton, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wise, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Young, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, after ("corporate") insert ("with a regional structure as determined by the body corporate in consultation with persons and organisations it considers appropriate").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 134. The amendments would achieve two purposes. The regional structure of the funding councils is mentioned

135
only in the schedule. If brought into the main body of the Bill the structure would have greater emphasis which we believe is highly appropriate, given that a great deal of the real work of the funding councils will have to be undertaken at that level. There are, after all, over 500 colleges. It will be impossible to determine their funding and the structure of their work entirely from the centre. The amendments seek to give the councils a greater say over their own affairs which would enhance their status and effectiveness.
The debate in Committee indicated that the delineation of the regions will be a rather complex and sensitive exercise and one to which the councils themselves ought to be able to make a contribution. The proposed amendments therefore allow the funding councils to make the decisions about the regional structure rather than having them laid down in the statute.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the Education Reform Act 1988, and in particular Schedule 8, paragraph 9, gives the Universities Funding Council the power to establish committees for any purpose. The UFC has been making use of that power to establish regional committees. Therefore the amendments give the further education funding councils similar powers to those of the Universities Funding Council.
I anticipate the objection that the Government may put forward that the regional structure is of such significance that it cannot be left to the councils. However, if it is of such significance it surely merits mention in the body of the Bill and fuller treatment in the schedule so that its significance can be properly appreciated by Parliament.
Secondly, the proposed requirement to be placed upon the councils to consult about the regional structure obviously gives the Secretary of State a strong voice in the process. If his proposals for the regions are at all sensible and appropriate, then there must surely be a good chance that the councils—all of whose members will be appointed by the Secretary of State—will be persuaded to adopt them. So there is no need for him to be worried that proposals which are highly unacceptable to him will be put forward by the councils. It is unclear why he would want more powers rather than giving the councils more control over this aspect of the new structure.
We must avoid a regional structure designed by officials and imposed upon the system without a proper examination of its merits. Above all, it is the funding councils that will have to work the system. Surely they, in consultation with the Secretary of state, should devise a system in which they believe and which is workable. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support the amendment to which my name is attached. I give also the support of these Benches. I reiterate what the noble Baroness said: if the councils have to work through a regional structure they should at least have a strong, if not dominant, voice in how it is set up. The Secretary of State will be involved virtually from the word go because of the consultations. Surely the
136
funding councils should construct the regional levels because they will then be able to have an influence on the problems with which they will be dealing.
Lord Renton: My Lords, from the clear exposition given by the noble Baroness, it seems that the short point here is whether the regional structure, which we all agree must exist, shall be laid down by the Secretary of State, as the Bill says, or by the funding councils, as she proposes. We have regional structures for various purposes. Admittedly, under the 1988 Act that was not done by the Secretary of State but in other ways provided by the Act. I should have thought that we want a bit of consistency and cohesion with regional structures.
If we are to have specialists in each subject establishing their own regional structures, we may well find that there is not that cohesion which might be an advantage. If we are to have some such consistency, surely it would be better if it were laid down at the centre, the Secretary of State having had the opportunity of consulting Cabinet colleagues who may be responsible for other regional structures. Perhaps I may say in passing—I hope that it is not irrelevant—that in local government and other matters there may be a tendency in future, whichever party is in power, towards regional structures.
I remember when there was virtually no regional structure for Wales. That, thank goodness, came in. Although I am sure that the noble Baroness has, with great sincerity, done a service to your Lordships' House by putting forward her view—it is a view worth considering—on balance, this is the type of matter which is best kept under the control of central government.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we had a considerable discussion in Committee on this subject. It was finally left that the council's regional structure should not be specified in legislation. The amendments do something different. Their effect would be to give the funding council, rather than the Secretary of State, responsibility for determining the regional structure and therefore in England the regional committees. In the case of the first amendment, the council in reaching its decisions would also be required to consult such persons and organisations as it considered appropriate.
I unhesitatingly reaffirm the importance the Government attach to the regional structure of the council and to the role of the regional committees. Those committees will be the council's main source of advise on local needs. Their members will be appointed by the Secretary of State in recognition of the important role that they will be expected to play.
Against that background, it is reasonable that my right honourable friend should wish to retain the responsibility to determine the regional structure and the option of altering the size and number of regions to suit the future needs of the sector. A point I endeavoured to make in Committee is that there are changes in population and therefore in further education provision. The power which exists in the schedule to alter the size and number of regions might be necessary in the future.

137
The noble Baroness sought to pre-empt me by saying that the Government might say that the regional structure is of such great significance that decisions on it should be in the hands of the Secretary of State. I have referred to the importance we attach to the regional structure and the regional committees, and I do not want to add to that.
The Secretary of State is anxious to ensure that the regional structure is put in place as soon as possible and for that reason too he wishes to retain responsibility for decisions on what the structure should be. It is in that context that we are reluctant to hand over the strategic decision on the regional structure to the funding council, which is not yet established. It will have to take off from a standing start. I can only add that my right honourable friend will of course take account of the views of interested bodies. He is bound to do that, and I give an undertaking that that is his intention.
There is not a great deal between us on this point, although I disagree with the amendment. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, we agree that a regional structure, in the context of the Bill, is necessary. The noble Baroness said that the structure should be decided by the funding council itself. For the Government, I say that the Secretary of State should decide. I stick to that view. The whole regional overview is better given from the department. For the future, it is better to have that overview if it is necessary to make changes to the structure. It is on those grounds that I disagree with the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I accept that there is not an enormous amount between us. It is a matter of judgment as to what is the best way of determining the regional structure. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that there is a case for setting this down from the centre. The funding councils are central bodies. If they were to be given these powers they would be setting down something from the centre. It is the funding councils which will have to work the system. That is why it seemed to us on this side of the House more appropriate that they should determine their own regional structures. There is a strong case for devolving such decisions in any system of government, but of course in consultation with the Secretary of State.
I am grateful to the Minister for giving the assurance that the Government and the Secretary of State will take into account the views of all organisations and bodies with an interest in this matter. In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 12, after ("exercise") insert ("in consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to them to be concerned").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the arguments in favour of a requirement to consult LEAs were covered at some length in Committee; but I regret to say we did not get as far as some of us would have
138
liked with respect to the Government's response on the question. In the course of his reply in Committee, among other things the Minister said:
"The short answer is that under the Bill they"—
the LEAs—
"do not have a role for providing further education of the kind that will be funded by the new funding councils. They will continue to have an important role but not in Schedule 2 course funding".—[Official Report, 9/12/91; col. 490.]
I regret to say that that is factually incorrect. While under the Bill local education authorities no longer have the duty to secure courses of the kind listed in Schedule 2, they still retain the power to provide them. The council will not have a monopoly of this kind of work, so the need for coherence and for careful co-ordination is still there. It is surely hard to deny that there is a close relationship in practice between work falling inside and outside Schedule 2 provision.
Another problem in the Minister's reply was the lack of differentiation he made between the request for consultation and requests for stronger forms of LEA involvement. It is perhaps conceivable that the latter—in other words stronger forms of LEA involvement—might have fettered the council's discretion or confused the locus of accountability. However, that surely cannot be true of mere consultation.
The Government have included duties to consult in countless pieces of legislation covering a wide variety of aspects of national life for the simple reason that it ensures that those who take decisions are more likely to have in front of them the relevant and necessary information. Why has a statutory duty to consult suddenly become a problem as regards this Bill? Perhaps the Minister can say whether this signals some shift in policy which will be applied to other areas.
A further area of difficulty concerns the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that while he expected there to be no lack of opportunity to co-operate with LEAs, the amendment would be a quantum leap beyond that. We believe that is incorrect. The reverse is more likely to be true. It is possible to consult, in other words to invite views, without that leading to co-operation. However, it is not possible to co-operate without consultation having first occurred. If the Government expect co-operation to occur, this makes it even more perverse to resist the bare minimum of formal communication which is all that is implied by a statutory duty to consult.
The Minister also claimed that direct consultation between the national body and individual LEAs was self-evidently impractical because of the number of LEAs and the multiplicity of their funding arrangements. In the education service direct consultation with individual LEAs is conducted by the Government many times every year on a whole range of issues. It would be extraordinary if that were not the case. Does this provision signal another general change in government policy whereby that activity will now come to an end? The Minister's comment also seemed to ignore the role of the local authority associations. The proposed amendments take account of the problems of a national body consulting with all LEAs by referring to local authority associations at national level as being the appropriate bodies and

139
allowing the funding councils to decide which LEAs they consider appropriate to consult at local level. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I support these amendments. Once again we are simply asking that those directly involved in this matter should consult those involved at another level. We are not asking for any great change to be made to the overall thrust of the Bill. We are merely asking for consultation. We should all wish to ensure that consultation occurs. Such a provision would not affect the Bill in any way. I see no reason why consultation should not occur. The functioning of the Bill would be greatly improved if consultation were to take place.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, as the noble Baroness has clearly explained, these amendments would require the Further Education Funding Council for England to exercise all of its functions in consultation with such local authority associations as appeared to it to be concerned. The amendments would also require the funding councils for England and Wales to exercise their principal duties to secure the provision of education in consultation with such local education authorities as they considered appropriate. The amendments are very similar to ones which the noble Baroness tabled in Committee and which were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
I should apologise for the fact that I related various inaccuracies to the Chamber in Committee. On that ground the noble Baroness has felt it right to re-table the amendment despite the fact that a vote was taken on it and the matter was therefore decided at that stage of the Bill. I repeat, however, that the Government consider that it would unnecessarily constrain the funding councils if, by statute, they were required to consult local education authorities about everything they did.
The amendment the Government have the greatest difficulty with is Amendment No. 3, which has the effect I have just described. I say that as it is self-evident that the funding councils and the regional committees of the funding council for England will need to talk to local authorities regularly if they are to do their job properly, particularly in respect to Clauses 2 and 3. As my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out in Committee on 9th December, there is absolutely nothing to prevent local authorities making their views known, publicly or otherwise. I accept that I have been inaccurate in not talking about the power of local authorities in matters covered by Clauses 2 and 3. The funding councils need to keep their eyes open as regards what is being done by local education authorities. One has only to look at Clause 2 to appreciate that. Clause 2(6) lays a duty upon a funding council to have regard,
"to any education to which subsection (1) above applies provided by schools maintained by local education authorities, grant-maintained schools, special schools not maintained by local education authorities, city technology colleges or city colleges for the technology of the arts".
Exactly the same remit is laid upon the shoulders of a funding council in Clause 3(5). I accept absolutely
140
that in providing education under Clauses 2 and 3 then will have to be a perfectly sensible requirement for co-operation and communication between the parties concerned. For the reasons I have given, I repeat that the Government do not like these amendments. However, as I have said, we are well aware that the success of our proposals will depend upon successful co-operation.
I pin my case upon the first amendment of the group. I simply do not believe it is appropriate to enshrine in statute a formal consultation process as regards all the functions of the funding councils. That would tie up the funding councils in red tape and would not be in the interests of making the new arrangements work well.
The noble Baroness looks perplexed. I was going to say that I hoped to have dispelled any idea on the Benches opposite that the Government, or I, are in some way opposed to talking to local education authorities on these matters. It is just the bureaucratic nature of the first amendment in the group that I do not like.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I looked a little perplexed as there are countless pieces of legislation that enshrine in statute duties to consult as regards the functions of a whole range of national bodies. Therefore, I am a little puzz ed as to why it should be thought inappropriate in this case, particularly given the Government's conviction that it is important that there should be close co-operation between local education authorities and the funding councils. So much of what each side of the duopoly does will be a matter of balancing different kinds of provision and ensuring that there is not duplication. If there were no such co-operation there would be something of a mess and there could be chaos in some places. As I said in moving the amendment, consultation is surely needed in order to secure co-operation. Therefore I am a little disappointed by the Minister's reply.
I should also like to comment on one further point. Although the Minister is right in pointing to Clause 2(6) and Clause 3(5), to ask the funding council to have regard to the education provided in various other types of institution is not the same as asking it to consult those institutions. It is quite different. Although it has some relevance to the amendments I do not believe that those subsections satisfy the intention behind my amendment.
However, we have already had a long debate on the subject in Committee and the Minister has reminded us that we have already divided on the matter. I regret that I am unable to persuade the Government to be more responsive but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert:
("to undertake the funding of further education in England and Wales as specified in this Part, and nothing in this Part shall relate to the provision of full-time education suitable for the requirements of persons over compulsory school age who have not attained the age of nineteen years.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 17, 20, 22, 23 and 26, which are purely technical and consequential on Amendment No. 4 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
I have some difficulty with the matter because, as often happens to me in your Lordships' House, I have begun to understand the legislation I am dealing with only towards the end of the legislative process. It may be that when the Minister replies he will be able to educate me and tell me that I still do not understand this aspect of the Bill, but I shall do the best I can.
First, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 2(1), which defines the duty of each of the funding councils in relation to education for 16 to 19 year-olds. The subsection states, as strongly as possible, that:
"It shall be the duty of each council to secure the provision for the population of their area of … full-time education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age who have not attained the age of nineteen years".
That refers to the whole of the group of 16 to 19 year-olds.
Then one comes to Clause 2(2). I do not understand why that is there. One of my questions to the noble Lord is what Clause 2(2) adds to Clause 2(1). Subsection (2) states that:
"That duty extends to all persons among that population".
Having defined it as applying to all persons I do not see how subsection (2) can then extend that duty to all persons. It may be that lawyers like to include an additional sentence for a purpose which I do not understand, but as a matter of formal logic Clause 2(2) adds nothing to Clause 2(1).
My main point is that the funding council has a duty in respect of the whole of that population of 16 to 19 year-olds. Turning to page 8, Clause 10(2), referring to local education authorities, states that they:
"shall have the power to secure the provision for their area of full-time education",
suitable to the same age group. If the further education councils have that duty, it is not clear why that power for the local education authorities has been included. What is it doing there?
Then I come to a further matter. Clause 11 amends Section 41 of the Education Act 1944. It states that we should now substitute the following statement:
"It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure the provision for their area of adequate facilities for further education".
Since the 16 to 19 year-old age group falls within that provision there seem to be two sets of duties, which conflict. I find it all extremely puzzling.
That leads me to the substantive matter, having asked my questions in the hope of clarification. I agree that we have been over the matter before. It is only because I am more worried about it now than I was earlier that I return to it. The substantive matter is that the 16 to 19 year-old age group—and for the moment I shall concentrate on those who are in full-time education—can attend full-time education in three places. They can be in full-time education in a further education college, as has been defined hitherto. They
142
can be in full-time education in a sixth form college, which will be in the FE sector once the Bill is passed into legislation, when such sixth-form colleges will come under the aegis of the funding councils rather than the local authorities. Or they can be in school sixth forms.
As I understand it—and this is another problem in relation to my understanding of the Bill—under the definition in Clause 14, members of that 16 to 19 year-old age group who attend either a sixth form college or an FE college will be deemed to be engaged in further education. However, if I understand the matter correctly (and notice all the conditional statements, and I am looking forward to the Minister saying that I do not understand the matter) 16 to 19 year-olds in that same age group who are in the sixth form will be deemed to be receiving school education. As a matter of pure logic I am puzzled as to why they are deemed to be at school and receiving school education when they take a particular course at school but in the FE sector when they follow exactly the same course at an FE college. I should have thought that we could have written the legislation rather better. I raise that point in order to make sure that I understand what is happening.
What really concerns me is the point that was raised by a number of noble Lords, including noble Lords on the Government side of the House, as to whether ultimately that means the end of school sixth forms. I do not mean that the Bill abolishes school sixth forms. I mean that, given the nature of the duties and responsibilities, bearing in mind the question of finance and taking a slightly longer view, it is questionable whether a local education authority, having lost the jewels of the FE colleges and sixth form colleges, will regard it as desirable to give much priority to the preservation of school sixth forms.
That point was raised and it is the one to which I return this afternoon. I return to it in a form which I know the Government will find unattractive because, essentially, I am saying that there is another solution to the problem, which is to leave the matter more strongly within the local authorities. If local authorities have greater responsibility for that age group, they will not have any incentive to give up school sixth forms because they will be part of the same planned package. That is why I draw the matter to your Lordships' attention, for the last time.
Of course, as always, I accept the bona fides of the Government's intentions. I do not for a moment suggest that there is a hidden agenda and that the Government want to abolish school sixth forms. I cannot believe that this Government would want to do so or that there could be a hidden agenda. However, we know enough about the way the world works to be aware that one can bring forces into play so that, even if it were not the intention to abolish school sixth forms, that would be the ultimate result.
I do not apologise for repeating a point which I have made to your Lordships before. We know that school sixth forms are more expensive. There are often very good reasons why that should be so. Therefore, given the trend of this Bill, one of the forces at work will be that of finance, which will cause sixth forms to

143
go out of existence. This is my last attempt to persuade the Government at least to consider that they might be wrong in moving this far from the local authorities. I accept that the Government are not doing so in order to abolish the poll tax but because they consider it educationally desirable. They may end up with what the great Professor Popper called the unforeseen consequences of actions, but in this case, as I am drawing them to your Lordships' attention, they will be the foreseen consequences of actions. As a result of possibly quite sensible rationalisations, we shall achieve an outcome which, quite independent of politics, many noble Lords would regard as unattractive. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I want briefly but decidedly to support the amendment. We are all agreed that the education of 16 to 18 year-olds is a seriously neglected area and a priority in getting our education system right. It is therefore plainly important that we make the best possible provision that we can.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, from the initiation of the Bill we on these Benches have not understood why it seemed appropriate to the Government to take sixth form education in any form out of the hands of local authorities. Sixth form colleges undoubtedly have a valuable part to play. There are no doubt many youngsters, but by no means all, who wish to leave school and go to what they regard as the more adult environment of a sixth form college. We go along with the Government on that, although I have a marked preference for a tertiary college rather than a sixth form college as such. But that is another issue.
That does not mean that the sixth form college must be taken out of the control of the local authority. If we say that this is the priority education group—I think that the House is agreed on that—we must get the administration, handling and finance of it absolutely right. Does it make sense that the local authority is responsible for sixth forms in schools but not for sixth form colleges? That is the difficulty as I see it. I therefore hope that the Government will reconsider the matter.
I support what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said. There is a strong case for sixth forms in schools. If I were teaching in secondary education, I would want to have a sixth form. I fear that the quality of teaching that we must have throughout schools could be badly affected if there were not sixth forms in schools. I do not see people who are keen on their subject being willing to teach in schools if they have no sixth forms. The teaching throughout the school will be damaged if there are not the people with the scholarly interest—an old-fashioned word but very important in connection with education—teaching throughout the school. You will not attract them if they do not have the stimulus and interest of the sixth form.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, there is much common ground in the House on this matter. I am sure that we all agree with the noble Lord, Lord
144
Peston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that sixth form colleges should continue to be as outstandingly successful as they have been. I am sure that we also agree with the point emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston; namely, that we are anxious to see sixth forms in schools continue to flourish. However, I believe that the noble Lord is correct in saying that many people on this side of the House will find the amendment unattractive. It is unattractive because it would radically and profoundly transform the entire structure of the Bill to the extent that, had it not been for the constructive manner in which the noble Lord put his observations, one would be tempted to regard it as a wrecking amendment. It would certainly be a demolition amendment because it would completely transform the further education sector.
The noble Lord had difficulty with the logic that those who follow a course at school are deemed to be at school and those who follow a course in a sixth form college within the further education sector are deemed to be undergoing further education. I do not find the same difficulty with that concept. Let us assume that many pupils or students between the years of 16 and 18 will be in the further education sector but that the majority will remain at the school in the sixth form. In that case, it would clearly be a strange anomaly to say that persons who are in a given school until the age of 16 and then continue at that school until the age of 18 have changed the area in which they receive their education. Likewise, it would be an anomaly to modify the funding in that sense.
The interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is that, if the sixth form colleges are funded by the further education sector and school sixth forms are funded by local authorities, as they are now, there might be a tendency towards attrition in the sixth forms of those schools. However, I am not sure why that should arise. I agree with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that it would be most unfortunate if that were so. The matters was discussed in considerable detail in Committee in December on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. The noble Baroness put her name to that amendment and spoke to it. It was substantively the same issue: where should sixth form colleges be within the organisation? It was emphasised that many pupils or students prefer to remain in school in the structured environment that they know. However, there are other pupils or students who begin to become dissident towards sixth-form years and prefer to up sticks and go to a new environment which is much more suited to them.
There are perhaps other distinctions between school sixth forms and sixth form colleges, but there is a real distinction and choice being exercised. It seems perfectly appropriate that pupils or students, however we define them, should be able to decide for themselves at the age of 16 whether they intend to remain in the structured environment of a school sixth form and thereby be pupils in the school sector, or whether they elect to transfer to a sixth form college and be students in the further education sector. I see no difficulty with that.
Another interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was that if local education authorities

145
did not have the jewels of the sixth form colleges under their organisational purview, they might lose heart as regards the sixth forms in their schools. I do not see why that should be. If I felt that to be so, I would be anxious. I am sure that the noble Lord is right to raise the matter. If you are the headmaster or headmistress of a successful school with a significant sixth form, I am sure that it is a source of pride and that you wish it to be so. You also wish pupils to remain in the school throughout the sixth form. If they choose to do so, I assume that the mechanism to be used is one of enrolment. If the pupils remained enrolled for the sixth form of the school, there would be an obligation on the local education authority to continue to fund the sixth form. If pupils or students elect to go to a sixth form college, they move to the further education sector funded through the further education funding council. I am anxious that there might be some attrition in sixth forms— that would be a serious matter—but I see no reason why there should be. To accept the amendment would be to demolish much of the Bill. I imagine that for that reason many noble Lords on this side of the House will wish to oppose it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have no difficulty at all with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that it should be possible for people at the age of 16 to chose whether they wish to remain in the sixth form of their own school or go to a sixth form college so long as we look at the matter from a purely educational point of view. However, when we start to look at it from an administrative point of view and particularly form the point of view of cost, however desirable it is—and I agree that it is desirable—it becomes a little more difficult because, from the point of view of those who provide education for 16 to 19 year-olds, there is inevitably a degree of alternativity between providing a school sixth form and providing a sixth form college. Obviously it will be appropriate to provide a sixth form college where most individual schools can support only a very small sixth form of perhaps three or four people. But where there is a large sixth form or a lively one, it may be appropriate to let it continue. If the noble Lord is not writing a blank cheque, he risks writing a double one and bringing in a great deal more cost than is perhaps necessary.
That brings me to the nub of the amendment. In many areas provision of a sixth form in an individual school and provision of a sixth form college are alternatives. Because they are alternatives, the one affects the need for the other. Therefore, I believe that there is a strong case for the decision as to which of them should be provided—that is precisely the form in which the decision will usually come—to be taken by one single authority. The issue arose in the school attended by both my sons. There was a proposal to provide a sixth form college. The school reacted in precisely the way described by my noble friend Lady Seear. It was a matter of pride to the school to retain its sixth form. The argument of economies of scale was put about. There emerged a working compromise whereby a joint sixth form was put together between four closely neighbouring schools. That is precisely
146
the kind of sensible political solution which, so far as I can see, could not be reached if the axe of this Bill were to fall between the two forms of provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, thought that the amendment could be seen as a wrecking amendment. I suggest that the Bill, by trying to put a division where there can in practice be no such division, has wrecked itself. In that rather nice 17th century phrase, the Bill is felo de se. I hope that passing the amendment may restore the Bill to life.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I wish to supplement the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. At present in Islington there is a sixth form centre. It took a long time to build up the centre which is independent of continuing provision within schools beyond 16. Putting together the centre was very important in order to deal with falling rolls in Islington's secondary schools and considerably improve Islington's very bad staying-on rate.
There is a distinction to be made between leaving school at 16 for either a sixth form college or a further education college. We may not perceive it but the students and their parents see the difference. There is a difference between a 16 to 19 sixth form college and a 16 to 96 further education college. It is very important that the three-way choice should be seen: continuing education in the sixth form of a school, a school consortium (as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out) and a 16 to 19 sixth form college. These arrangements could be dealt with at the local level. Then there may be a further education college, which is a different matter altogether.
We ought to be able to provide for a variety of institutions and not close down options, which will be the likely effect of the Bill if the amendment is not accepted.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this amendment but what has been said brings me to my feet. It comes back to one of the fundamental principles of the Bill. I am not happy with the amendment. It seems to me extremely close to being a wrecking amendment.
We come back to a vitally important issue on which I spoke at Committee stage and which still deeply troubles me. It is important to recognise the common ground. We all understand the importance of the 16 to 18 year-old age range and how provision for that age range must be improved. We all recognise the value of having further education colleges, sixth form colleges, tertiary colleges and sixth forms in schools. Variety of choice is important and should be retained. That is common ground among us.
We begin to divide over the issue of who should have responsibility for strategic planning. Here, matters of administrative responsibility and finance come into play. I accept entirely the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, who said that it was important that young people should have the option of going to whichever of those educational institutions met their individual needs. So far so good. But what happens when a local education authority comes

147
under financial pressure and feels that it cannot, will not, or should not, continue to provide sixth form education in some schools and the FE funding council either begins to exert pressure to have more sixth form colleges or does not have money available? There is then the danger of being pushed into a position in which those essentially educational decisions are made on administrative and financial grounds.
A more fundamental question returns to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, raised so provocatively and importantly. At the end of the day, who takes the financial decision? That must be clear. Is it the FE funding council or the local education authority? Or are we to become lost in a terrible wrangle? We must be clear. It is a vital issue.
It is not only that issue that needs to be established and clarified. We must also be clear that the choice ought to be retained. To that extent we should keep under control, if I may put it that way, the financial and administrative pressures, in order to ensure that the educational issues are retained in the forefront of our minds.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the speeches that we have heard so far against the amendment have been so clear that I can be very brief. I am surprised by the amendment. I had always assumed that noble Lords opposite were just as keen as those on this side of the House to ensure that our education system should create the maximum opportunities and be as flexible as possible. Unless I have misread or misunderstood the amendment, it seems to me that bright young people whose compulsory school education is over but who, for some reason of their own or perhaps for family reasons, do not want to go to a sixth form college or into a sixth form at all but want some kind of specialist further education as soon as possible and avoid having to wait until the age of 19 could be deprived of that chance. For those reasons I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is no question but that this is a very serious amendment. Its purpose is to leave with local education authorities the duty to secure the provision of sufficient facilities for the full-time education of 16 to 18 year-olds, thus effectively preserving the existing statutory provision in relation to such education and going wholly against Clause 2 of the Bill.
However, there is more to the amendment than that. The duty to secure the provision of adequate facilities for part-time education for the same age group would still be transferred to the funding councils under Clause 3 of the Bill. The amendments would thus introduce a new and in the Government's view damaging dividing line between full-time and part-time education for 16 to 18 year-olds.
The main purpose of Part I of the Bill is to provide more and better education for 16 to 18 year-olds, and indeed for adults, and to ensure increased participation and higher levels of attainment by young people and throughout the population. We believe that those aims can most effectively be met by transferring the duty to secure provision of further education for those aged 16 to 18 from local education authorities to the
148
new further education funding councils and by giving further education and indeed sixth form colleges an independence they have not had previously.
It seems a long time ago now, but perhaps I may just go back to the beginnings of the Bill. I recall making the point at Second Reading that this was a move widely welcomed among those involved in running the colleges. I know that there are different views about the desirability of what is proposed so far as it affects sixth form colleges—the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was absolutely right to raise the point —but the Association of Principals of Sixth Form Colleges is in favour of the move. The reason that those who run colleges are in favour of the move is that it will give them much greater flexibility to manage their own affairs. We believe that the new funding methodology will give them a powerful incentive to expand participation.
The amendments would prevent that happening. They would leave with the local education authorities the duty to provide for further full-time education for 16 to 18 year-olds and there would be no real independence, as is planned in the Bill, for the further education colleges.
The Bill is also designed to eradicate what we see as a damaging dividing line between academic and vocational education. If the amendments were made, full-time education for 16 to 18 year-olds, which is predominantly of an academic nature, would be the responsibility of the local authorities and part-time education for the same group—which is largely, although not wholly, vocational—would fall to the further education funding councils. We believe that that would be a damaging split. I observe noble Lords opposite shaking their heads. I realise that the position is not as black and white as that, but there is a great deal of truth in what I said.
Let us go back to first principles. One of the reasons that has motivated the Government to bring the Bill forward is to try to eliminate the divide between academic and vocational education. It is a reasonable argument that one of the faults that has dogged our attitudes to education in this country over the past 45 years has been—dare I say it? —looking on vocational education as in some way second class compared with academic education. It is because of the desire to ensure that there is no damaging dividing line between academic and vocational education that the Bill has been brought forward.
In addition, your Lordships have listened carefully to the argument that there may be a danger of erosion of full-time education of 16 to 18 year-olds in local authority sixth forms in schools. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear his intention that the sixth forms in good schools should continue to thrive. In discharging their duty, the funding councils will be required to have regard to full-time education provided for 16 to 18 year-olds in institutions that they will not fund. That appears in Clause 2(6). It is important that it is put that way round: that the funding councils have to have regard for what is being provided in other institutions. That will include sixth forms in schools.

149
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said that that is not quite the end of the argument. There is also the question of who is to take the decisions for strategic changes, in particular with regard to the sixth form sector. I speak now without a brief. With regard to the case that the right reverend Prelate put forward, there might be pressure put on a sixth form college to close and some alternative provision in the further education sector to open. Who will take the final decision? That factor is surely embedded in the law as we have it. The closure procedures would need to be gone through and the final decision would need to be taken by the Secretary of State.
On the desirability of the amendment, the Government believe that the duty to secure the provision of full-time education for young people should lie with the funding councils. Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord's technical points. That is why Clause 10(2) makes it clear that local education authorities still have the power to provide sixth forms for education in schools but Clause 11 prevents both LEAs and the councils from being under a duty to secure the provision of the same type of education. If the councils have the duty under Clause 2(1) or Clause 3(1) then the local education authorities cannot also have a duty. But they have a power.
In order exhaustively to clear up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, raised, Clause 2(2) makes it clear that the duty under Clause 2(1) does not extend to persons aged 19 years or over.
I apologise for being rather long-winded in answering. However, it is an important amendment. Before I sit down perhaps I may remind noble Lords of what I believe is damaging. I have used the word and I shall use it again. If the amendment were accepted, we should have an artificial divide—almost a further education binary line—between the academic and vocational. I believe that the Bill will go a long way towards eliminating that. I do not believe that such a divide would be right.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and I thank all other noble Lords who have taken the trouble to debate the amendment. I do not see it as a wrecking amendment. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that in this Chamber we do not divide on Second Reading. If we wish to argue that something basic is wrong with the Bill we have to proceed some way into the Bill in order to damage it without wrecking it, if I may put it that way. The amendment changes the Bill significantly. However, if we are unable ever to seek to change a Bill significantly because we are accused of putting down wrecking amendments, I do not see why we bother with deliberations in your Lordships' House. But I do not believe that it is a wrecking amendment.
Noble Lords will appreciate that I did not put the amendment down in order to divide the House on the matter. I have no intention of doing so. I put it down because I wanted to clarify certain differences between us which I should like to take two or three minutes to emphasise.
150
I agree entirely with the Minister that the fundamental aim is the education of 16 to 19 year-olds. The councils are the means. My amendment is not a wrecking amendment; my argument is that there are better means. The Government do not agree with me, but it seems reasonable to place my view on record that we agree entirely with the aims but that there are alternative means which we ought to consider.
I accept the logical point that the Minister makes: that in the Bill we have a distinction between schools for 16 to 19 year-olds and an FE sector. The means that I suggest would produce a different distinction between full and part-time education. I accept logically that one will have an artificial distinction whatever one does. I seek to argue as cogently as I can that one would still have a part-time sector in FE and that my method is more sensible. I fully accept that the Government are entitled to hold a different view. But I do not regard the amendment as wrecking. I am trying to clarify the nature of the decision that we are taking.
I take strong issue with the Government on two matters. The distinction between full and part time is not the distinction between academic and vocational; a fortiori it ought not to be the distinction. I believe that the Government mislead if they argue that the distinction between full and part-time education relates to vocational versus academic. I stand second to no one in my desire to see a strong vocational element in all our education, including higher education. I have no difficulty with that. I believe that the Government are mistaken if that is the way they wish to argue.
My second point relates to diversity of choice, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and others. The danger is that we shall end up with less diversity and less choice. I am trying to point out the danger that the school sixth forms will disappear. As I understand it, there is no obligation on the part of local authorities to provide sixth forms. The Secretary of State cannot make a local authority have a sixth form. Therefore the danger must be one way: that those sixth forms will go. I do not express that as a certainty because there are no certainties. I should like to believe that I am mistaken. However, if the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, the danger is that school sixth forms would go on financial grounds, if on no other.
I have had my day on this amendment. I assure noble Lords that I shall not come back to the matter again within this Bill. We have heard the issues. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 23, leave out from ("State") to ("persons") in line 25 and insert:
("(a) shall have regard to the desirability of including").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is agreed that Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 133 will be taken with this amendment.
The amendments would require the Secretary of State, in making appointments to a further education funding council, to have regard to the desirability of

151
including persons who were currently engaged in the provision of further education or in carrying responsibility for such provision.
A number of points were made in Committee about the desirability of ensuring that practitioners in further education were considered for membership of the funding councils. We have considered the issue carefully and your Lordships' arguments have prevailed. Hence the reference in the amendment to,
"being currently engaged in the provision of further education"
as a desirable attribute for membership of a funding council.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has tabled amendments which cover the same ground as the amendment I am moving. Her Amendments Nos. 6 and 11 would require my right honourable friend in making appointments to a further education funding council to have regard to the desirability of including members who have experience or have shown a capacity in the provision of further education. Her Amendments Nos. 7 and 12 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of including members who had acquired educational expertise by virtue of their membership of a local education authority.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will agree that in our reference to the desirability of including on the council persons who are currently engaged in the provision of further education the Government have fully recognised the points made in Committee. We have sought to achieve her aim slightly more effectively than, on this occasion, have her amendments. The great majority of members of local education authorities will fall squarely into the category of those who have experience of the provision of education or who have experience of industrial, commercial or financial matters. Many, indeed most, will probably fall into more than one of those categories or will be a member of one of the professions. If a member of a local education authority did not fall into one of those categories it would not be desirable to select such a person statutorily for appointment to a funding council.
In moving the government amendments I hope that the noble Baroness will consider that I have gone a long way in seeking to meet the points made. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am pleased that the Government have recognised the points that were made by Members on this side of the Committee and have accepted some of our arguments, including the desirability that the funding councils should include members with knowledge and experience not only of education generally but of further education specifically. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward an amendment.
There is one aspect of the Government's amendments which causes me a little anxiety and in that respect I believe that the amendments tabled in my name are preferable. The amendments tabled by the Government use the phrases "currently engaged"
152
and "carrying responsibility". They would restrict the Secretary of State's choice to people working in the sector. When the Committee dealt with the higher education funding councils I tabled an amendment referring to people who were currently engaged in higher education. At that time the Minister reminded me that it could exclude people who had retired, perhaps recently, but who had a great deal of relevant experience. However, they could not be included in the provision because of the use of the term "currently engaged".
Therefore, although it is desirable that the knowledge and experience of members of the funding council should be up to date, many of the individuals currently engaged in the provision of further education will be personally involved in a particular institution. As a result, some questions might be raised about their independence. The more general wording in Amendment No. 11 is therefore to be preferred. It can bring in people outside a particular institution because they no longer work in the sector; for example, retired HMIs with considerable experience of inspecting further education colleges, retired local authority officials or ex-chairmen of education committees.
I turn to the Minister's comments about local education authorities and to the amendments that refer specifically to the inclusion of a person with experience as a member of a local education authority. As LEAs currently have the responsibility for providing further education, and will continue to have some responsibility for future provision, the experience of an LEA would be particularly valuable for the funding council. For that reason we felt it right to table an additional amendment which makes specific reference to the inclusion of a person with experience as a member of a local education authority. I hope that in reply the Minister will respond to my slight worry about the wording of his amendments compared with those tabled in my name.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly for the concession embodied in Amendment No. 10. I welcome it unreservedly. On the other hand, on behalf of my alter ego whose name appears on the Marshalled List, I wish to say a few words about Amendment No. 7 relating to a representative of a local education authority. Since the debate in respect of Amendment No. 4 relating to sixth forms the provision has become more necessary.
I listened with care to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. I believe that if we are splitting the provision for school sixth forms and the provision for sixth form colleges we are creating a need for consultation between the funding council and local education authorities, which is a great deal more acute than before. For that reason Amendment No. 7 is not trifling and I hope that the Minister will be prepared to think again about it.
Baroness David: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 9, 14 and 133 are tabled in my name. I am trying to achieve a slightly different aim from that which I had in Committee in order to meet the Minister's anxiety. I then suggested that a member of the funding council

153
should be a person with experience of the type of education listed in Schedule 2. The Minister appeared to be worried that the provision would exclude many other people. He said that it would reduce the breadth of education experience on the funding councils by excluding any type of education not listed.
On this occasion I have framed my amendments to insert the words:
"including education of the types listed in Schedule 2".
That would not exclude those with educational experience outside those particular courses.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 14 are to Clause 1 and Amendment No. 133 is to Schedule 1, dealing with the make-up of the committees set up by the funding councils. I believe that my amendments have a point to make. I agree that the Minister has gone a considerable way towards meeting the anxieties expressed, but I am pleased with my amendments. Perhaps he would like to comment upon them.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships including the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for saying that they are pleased that the government amendments have been brought forward. However, the noble Baroness made the point that we may be excluding people who have retired such as, for example, a recently retired member of Her Majesty's Inspectorate or a teacher. That point is covered by the wording in Clause 1, which refers to those who "have experience of" the provision of education, and so on.
The noble Baroness made the point also that I had used the argument previously, relying on a Latin tag, which comes from my noble friend Lord Renton, that if you include one, you exclude the rest. The rather tentative, but necessarily tentative, wording of Amendment No. 10 probably gets us out of that difficulty. Amendment No. 10 states that, in making appointments to the council, the Secretary of State:
"shall have regard to the desirability of their being currently engaged in the provision of further education or in carrying responsibility for such provision".
It will be a duty to have regard to that desirability when making appointments of that kind. I hope that I have not fallen foul of the invariable rule which my noble friend Lord Renton has often quoted helpfully to me in our debates.
That leaves the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David. This matter was discussed within the department as regards the amendments which the noble Baroness, Lady David, brought forward in Committee. Their aim was to bring those involved in Schedule 2 courses into the reckoning as desirable candidates for membership of the funding councils. I hope that we have gone more widely than the noble Baroness suggested. We have included those who are involved in Schedule 2 courses because the reference to education and, indeed, those who are currently involved in providing further education could, many times over, include those who are involved in Schedule 2 courses. I realise that saying that means that we do not specifically include the point raised by the noble
154
Baroness, but that is because it is covered by the Bill as drafted and by the government amendments which we now propose.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 26, after ("education") insert ("(including experience as a member of a Training and Enterprise Council)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. If I understand government Amendment No. 10 correctly, it makes more explicit what the Minister and other noble Lords have said is desirable; that is, it will make clear the desirability of appointing as members of a training and enterprise council persons who have experience.
I am not entirely certain about that because I do not know whether members of a training and enterprise council can be said to be engaged in the provision of further education. I am not certain that those people have a responsibility for such provision although they are closely connected with it.
I have accepted before and I still accept fully the Government's view that it is highly likely that members of training and enterprise councils will be appointed to the councils. I wish to make that explicit in order to emphasise the important role of the TECs. I should like to see them mentioned in this part of the Bill more to underline their importance than for any other reason. As I say, I do not doubt that such people will be appointed to the councils. That is why I press the point now; I seek a sign of the Government's earnestness in this regard. That is why I propose the two amendments standing in my name. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord divines my reaction correctly. I said that it will be desirable to have members of local education authorities as members of the new funding councils. That point is much the same as regards the TECs. Those who have experience of, or have shown capacity in the provision of, education, despite the cautionary words delivered by the noble Lord about that, or those who have experience of, or have shown capacity in, industrial, commercial or financial matters or the practice of any profession are almost certain to be members of training and enterprise councils. Most TEC members will fall into more than one of those slots. If that is not so, I question whether it is desirable to select such a member statutorily as being desirable for the funding councils. I do not mean that such a person would not be suitable but it is questionable whether, if he does not fall into those slots, he should be selected statutorily.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that, in addition to believing that the amendment of itself has merit, the purpose which lies behind it was to show confidence in the importance of the TECs in this context. I suggest gently that perhaps legislation is not the place in which to show that confidence. The noble Lord is quite right that we share his confidence in the TECs. The Government have made clear several times their view

155
that local authorities and TECs will continue to play an important role in post-16 education. Indeed, we have already given a commitment in the education and training White Paper that the Secretary of State will invite two representatives of local TEC interests to sit on each regional committee. The success of the new sector will depend upon effective co-operation between LEAs, TECs and colleges and funding councils. I do not believe that to write this matter upon the face of the Bill as a message of confidence is the right course for the Government to take. I hope that the noble Lord will not think that I am being deliberately obstructive, because I do not intend to be so.
Lord Peston: My Lords, of course I do not regard the noble Lord as being obstructive. His answer came within about 1 per cent. of convincing me. Essentially, on matters of substance, there is nothing between us. I should prefer to see training and enterprise councils written on to the face of the Bill. However, I agree that it is a matter of taste and we do not need to fight about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 28, after ("education") insert ("and, in appointing such persons, he shall have regard to the desirability of their being currently engaged in the provision of further education or in carrying responsibility for such provision").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 1, line 28, after ("education") insert ("including the provision of further education for students with learning difficulties").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48A, 66, 130 and 154. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that there will be someone on the funding councils and quality assessment committees experienced in the provision of education for students with learning difficulties.
In Committee on 9th December I withdrew a bunch of amendments which had the same purpose because the Government felt that they referred to representatives, although that was not our intention. The current wording stems from a suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, at col. 546 of Hansard. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said that he had the same idea but needed to consult and consider. I hope therefore that the new amendments will find favour with him.
Amendment No. 48A to Clause 6 is unchanged from Committee stage as it does not concern membership but aims to safeguard the interests of students with learning difficulties by imposing on councils a duty to consult bodies with experience of their special needs before allocating grants, loans and so on.
In Committee the aim of this bunch of amendments received a great deal of support on all sides of the Chamber. The disability organisations see them as important; the RNIB is anxious that without them the
156
planning of educational provision and subsequent progression into employment will not be adequate for the needs of students with learning difficulties. The Spastics Society believes that without the amendments present provision for students with learning difficulties will be weakened, which is something that the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, indicated at col. 544 the Government did not want.
The Spastics Society says that many disabled people and disability organisations have developed effective working relationships with their LEAs, often based on the slow build-up of trust and expertise on both sides. It is important that the new councils ensure not only that existing good practice is protected but also that the opportunity to develop good practice is not lost. The centralised nature of the councils may ensure that access to expertise is more consistent than at present. That would lead to a more effective use of resources, with money being spent in the most appropriate way, and ensuring the best possible provision for students with learning difficulties.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response in regard to the amendments. I hope that he feels we have overcome his objections and that he will be able to accept them. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I rise merely to support the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). There are good exceptions to every rule and this is a justifiable exception to the rule to which my noble friend Lord Belstead referred a short while ago about not being selective in drafting. However, if we are to get the provisions fully and satisfactorily applied for people with learning difficulties, then the funding bodies need the advantage of the advice of people with experience in giving that specialised education. On this occasion therefore I wish to support the noble Baroness.
Baroness David: My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness and I should like to support it. It is a matter of providing somebody who can contribute expertise and understanding on these matters. If that appropriate expertise is not available within the membership of the funding councils, the awareness of the requirements of students with learning difficulties of all kinds will, at worst, be absent and at best be based indirectly on consultation. I hope therefore that the Minister will see his way to accepting the amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise briefly to reiterate many of the opinions already stated. Those with special educational requirements need people who understand them to put their cases forward when it comes to funding and any other needs relating to the new councils. People often do not understand the problems involved, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said that he found difficulty following the situation. The area is complicated and there were many new facets introduced in discussions at Committee stage. That is a normal reaction for people who step into a pool which does not appear quite as deep as it is. People often find themselves sinking to

157
the top of their boots and beyond when they step into this specific bit of water. I hope therefore that the amendments will be accepted.
6 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, these are the first of a number of amendments relating to students with disabilities. We debated the arrangements for these students extensively in Committee, when I undertook that the Government would consider further some of the points that were advanced. Before I turn to these amendments, I hope it will be helpful if I take a minute or two to outline the conclusions that the Government reached on those points in the light of the useful further discussions that I have been able to have with some of your Lordships who spoke about students with disabilities in our previous debates.
One issue that arose a number of times in our previous debates was the nature of the duty towards students with disabilities. Your Lordships will have seen on the Marshalled List government Amendment No. 36 that would, if your Lordships approve it, extend the duty on the further education funding councils in relation to students with disabilities. I hope that will be welcomed as showing that we listened to the anxieties expressed earlier.
A second point to which previous speakers attached importance was the availability of expertise on the education of students with disabilities to the new funding councils. Here the Government's intention is to make it a condition of grant that the funding councils should obtain such specialist advice where it is not available internally. That condition of grant will be applied to both the further education and the higher education funding councils. The powers to attach conditions to the grants paid to the funding councils are contained in Clauses 7 and 64. In previous debates some mistrust was expressed over the way those powers may be used: this illustrates the beneficial value of the power to attach conditions to the grant.
In our previous debates about students with disabilities, some questions were also raised about the assessment of their educational needs. Assessment is of course a matter of the greatest importance, and I made it clear that we did not dispute its value to both students and lecturers but that we doubted the wisdom of prescribing it on the face of the Bill. Our conclusion is that the importance of assessing students' educational needs should be reiterated in guidance issued to the new further education system and also the local education authorities to cover their continuing responsibility for some students with disabilities. That will ensure that assessment is given proper attention, without introducing undesirable inflexibility.
Another question that arose previously concerned the interpretation of the phrase "disproportionate expenditure" where students with disabilities are concerned. I believe that I satisfied your Lordships in the course of the debate on the meaning of the phrase. Our view is that for the purposes of legislation it is clear as it stands. However, we intend to issue
158
guidance to the funding councils to establish that the prohibition on disproportionate expenditure is in no way intended to rule out provision which is necessarily expensive, such as that for students with disabilities.
Our previous debates also raised the question of transport for students with disabilities. Our view, which I believe is shared, is that the present law is adequate as it stands, but there may be a question over the enthusiasm with which the duties it contains are carried out. Our intention is to issue guidance to the local education authorities so as to ensure that there is no doubt as to the extent of the existing duties. As your Lordships know, the Bill ensures that the existing duties apply in the new further education sector: this is secured in Schedule 8. However, we noticed a gap in Schedule 8 as drafted in relation to students placed by the FEFCs in independent-sector colleges. Government Amendment No. 175 was tabled to ensure that LEAs' responsibility extends to placements made in the independent sector.
To summarise, for students with disabilities we are proposing two government amendments relating to the duty to secure placements in the independent sector and to transport. We are proposing to attach a condition to the funding councils' grant to ensure the availability of specialist knowledge about the education of those students. We are proposing to issue guidance on assessment of their educational needs, on the interpretation of "disproportionate expenditure" and on transport. In preparing guidance, we shall of course be glad to tap the knowledge of the bodies with special expertise in these areas. I can give more detail on each point as we debate later amendments.
In our forthcoming debates I expect to be pressed again to do more. There is a limit. I hope that the series of measures that I have outlined demonstrates that we do take seriously our responsibilities towards students with disabilities and that we have listened attentively to the points that have been made on their behalf. For all our sympathy for that group and for all our admiration of the body that advances its cause in your Lordships' House, as a Government we must also remember our responsibilities towards other groups. The resources at our disposal are not infinite. It is not just a matter of money. There is also no infinite supply of human resources nor of the time and energy of lecturers and other highly skilled staff. What we attempt to provide for any particular group must be kept in proportion so that the interests of other groups, equally deserving and perhaps equally vulnerable, are not harmed. There can be no question of making unlimited provision for students with disabilities at the expense of other groups. The measures that I have outlined will ensure that the interests of students with disabilities are appropriately secured in the new further education structures. At the same time they maintain the balance between their interests and those of other groups in our diverse society.
I thought it would be useful to set in context the comments that I shall now offer on this particular group of amendments by way of background. I hope that I have not spoken at too great length. Perhaps I may start with Amendments Nos. 15 and 130. These

159
would require the Secretary of State, in making appointments to the further education and higher education funding councils, to have regard to the desirability of including persons who have experience or knowledge of the requirements of students with learning difficulties. The Government listened carefully to the arguments made when this issue was debated during the Committee stage of the Bill, and we undertook to consider the matter further. As I have said, we are not persuaded that specialist advice on the education of students with learning difficulties is best secured in the way proposed by these amendments; but we do accept that it is needed.
The Government share the concern that specialist advice on the requirements of students with learning difficulties should be available to the councils. They will be responsible for a broad range of educational provision, including provision for students with learning difficulties, and it is clearly important that these responsibilities should be reflected in the councils' membership. The Bill is designed to ensure that. It requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of appointing members of the councils from a range of backgrounds, including, of course, people with a background in education. No category of educational experience is excluded. We see no need to go further and refer to one particular area of educational experience.
Nevertheless, we appreciate the concern of the promoters of the amendments to see some further assurance that the councils will be in a position to take proper account of the requirements of students with learning difficulties. The Government intend to make it a condition of the Secretary of State's grant to the funding councils that they seek specialist advice on matters relating to provision for these students where specialist knowledge on these matters is not available to them internally. The same requirement will apply both to the further education and to the higher education funding councils. The effect will be the same as that sought by noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendments, though by a different route.
The councils' decisions as they discharge their responsibilities will be informed by specialist knowledge of the education of students with disabilities. Moreover, that effect is guaranteed by the Government's approach. That would not be the case with the proposed amendments. They would require the Secretary of State to consider appointing a special needs expert, but leave him free to decide not to do so. By making it a condition of grant that specialist advice is obtained, the Government's approach avoids that element of uncertainty.
Amendment No. 48A would add bodies with experience or knowledge of students with learning difficulties to the parties which the further education funding councils are required to consult about the terms and conditions applicable to the payment of funds by the councils. While I recognise the concern behind the amendments, I have to say that the Government do not believe that that is appropriate.
It may be helpful if I explain the purpose of Clause 6. It ensures that the councils consult institutional
160
representatives and governing bodies about the terms of the financial memorandum which will set out the principal conditions governing the financial relationship between the councils and individual colleges. It is clearly right that the councils should consult those directly concerned as and when they set conditions on grant. This clause provides a safeguard that the interests of colleges will be taken into account.
I appreciate that the amendment is intended to ensure that the interests of students with learning difficulties are not ignored. But, as I have explained, the Government believe that the best method of securing that is through the condition of grant that I have described. That will ensure that, when the FE funding councils are contemplating conditions to be attached to the grant they pay to colleges, their decisions are informed by specialist knowledge of the education of students with disabilities.
Amendments Nos. 66 and 154 would require the quality assessment committees to be established by the further and higher education funding councils to include persons who have experience of, and have shown capacity in, further or higher education provision for students with learning difficulties.
We believe that these amendments are unnecessary. The Bill provides for the majority of the members of the councils' quality assessment committees to have experience of, or have shown capacity in, the provision of further and higher education. That of course includes further and higher education provision for students with learning difficulties. Thus, the amendments would do no more than make explicit that which is already provided for in the Bill.
I can reassure your Lordships that the condition of grant we are proposing would apply here too. It will run through all the activities of the funding councils. It will apply to their quality assessment function. It will require them either to maintain an internal source of specialist advice or to seek that advice externally, for the purposes of discharging all their functions, including their responsibility for quality assessment.
The condition of grant that I have described has the effect that is sought by the promoters of these amendments of ensuring that the interests of students with learning difficulties are properly considered throughout all the many and various activities of the higher and further education funding councils. It has the advantage of securing that effect without requiring the representation of that group on the councils' main committees. As the House knows, we do not intend to make these appointments on a representative basis, while we do want concern with the interests of students with disabilities to suffuse all the councils' activities, not just the top layer of committees. The condition of grant is a better method of achieving that result. I hope that, having spoken at very great length, I have reassured the House and the amendments can be withdrawn.
Lord Renton: My Lords, we should be very grateful to my noble friend. Can he explain in what form the guidelines are to be given?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I need notice of that question. It will be guidance and not circulars, if that is the distinction which my noble friend is making.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support, which once again came from all sides of the House. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I thank the Minister very much for his reply, which was so detailed and wide ranging that I shall need to study it a great deal. I am very relieved that he said that we shall go into more detail as we come to each of the amendments.
I am extremely glad that the Government accept that specialist advice is needed, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, this is such a complicated field. This is a subject about which an exception has to be made. As the Minister said, the condition of grant seems to be a much better method and to make more sense. I am extremely grateful for that. I am not absolutely certain that I understood what he was saying in reply to Amendment No. 48A, which is an amendment to Clause 6. I shall read what he said about that. Meanwhile, I am extremely grateful for the idea of the condition of grant, which he said will apply to Amendments Nos. 15, 66, 130 and 154. Therefore, I have no hesitation in withdrawing my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 1, at beginning insert ("shall have regard to the desirability of including").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was considered with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Full-time education for 16 to 18 year-olds]:
[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("sufficient") and insert ("adequate").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I should first point out that there is a mistake in Amendment No. 21 to which I shall be speaking with Amendment No. 19. The words "to be" should not be included in the words to be left out. The amendment should read,
"leave out 'sufficient' and insert 'adequate"'.
These are probing amendments which seek to discover any differences in the use of the words "sufficient" and "adequate" in different parts of the Bill: why the Government use one in one place and one in another. I looked up "sufficient" in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. The definition is:
"of a quantity, extent or scope adequate to a certain purpose or object"
"Adequate" is defined in the same dictionary as:
"Commensurate in fitness, sufficient, suitable".
"Sufficient" is used twice in Clause 2 and "adequate" is used in Clauses 3, 4 and 11. The word "inadequate" is used in Clause 6. In particular, the new local authority duties in Clause 11 are to be concerned with the provision of "adequate" facilities compared with the "sufficient" facilities mentioned in the council's
162
Clause 2 duties. The basis under which students with learning difficulties may have provision outside the FEFC institutions is the lack of "adequate" facilities. That is in Clause 4(2). If students did not have learning difficulties and were full time and under 19 years of age Clause 2's "sufficient" facilities would apply.
"Sufficient" in the second line of Clause 2 is replaced by "adequate" in the second line of Clause 3 and the words "to be sufficient" in the middle of Clause 2(3) (a) are not repeated in the middle of Clause 3(2) (a). Inadequacy of provision is the main reason for requiring an FEFC institution to act as a sponsoring body in applying to a council for financial support for an external institution—that is, in Clause 6(5). I am rather mystified, as other people have been, by the use of those words. I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's explanation. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the duty placed on the councils by Clause 2 carries over to the funding councils the duty imposed on local education authorities under Section 8 of the Education Act 1944. In Section 8 of the 1944 Act local education authorities are under a duty,
"to secure that there shall be available for their area sufficient schools … for providing secondary education".
That includes, at present, full-time education for young people aged 16 to 18 years.
The duty placed on the councils by Clause 3 carries over to the councils the duty imposed on LEAs under Section 41 of the 1944 Act. That places LEAs under a duty to secure the provision for their area of adequate facilities for further education. The Government's intention is quite simply to try to carry forward both provisions in the same terms to the new funding councils.
We could debate at some length the meaning of the words "sufficient" and "adequate" but my understanding is that for the purposes of the duties on local education authorities it has always been accepted that the term "sufficient" in Section 8 of the 1944 Act imposed a stronger power than the term "adequate" in Section 41. The effect of the amendment would be taken to reduce the strength of the duty on the funding councils. That is an objective which I should not have thought was the intention of the noble Baroness.
I hope that explanation will persuade the noble Baroness that the amendment has achieved its objective of probing what the Government understand is the reason for the use of the two different words and the effect of the two different words. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that it would not be right to "level down" by getting this amendment agreed to—because that would be the effect of it—and that in fact the status quo of the 1944 Education Act is about right.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am very glad to have had that explanation and I think I understand it. I shall read it again with care and look up the references in the Bill, but I see that the Bill is following the 1944 Act. I am very grateful to the Minister for that

163
explanation and, as I said, I shall look forward to reading it again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert ("taking into account the higher unit costs of sixth form colleges").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, once again we find ourselves dealing with sixth form colleges. The basic thrust of this amendment is to ensure that the funding councils do not discriminate against sixth form colleges due to their higher costs.
We had a long and fairly full debate on this issue at Committee stage and the basic thrust of that discussion seemed to revolve around the problem that it was not quite clear what sixth form colleges were. The basic point that we were debating throughout was whether they were colleges or schools. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said at one point:
"It would be open to the funding councils to take into account the special aspects of the provision offered by sixth form colleges and denominational colleges, and to consider how they should be reflected in the funding methodology".
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, then pointed out that sixth form college provision is not in any sense special case provision, merely different and just more expensive. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, then said:
"It will be for the further education councils to judge how to make the most effective use of their resources and how to avoid provision that might give rise to disproportionate expenditure. We should not forget that in the Bill that is tied, following the example of the 1944 Act, to meeting the reasonable needs of the young people of the age group of the area. There is no question of imposing an inflexible funding framework on the new sector. The funding reforms are intended to allow institutions to make the most of their differences and not to obliterate them".—[Official Report, 9/12/91; col. 505.]
If we are trying to make the most of those differences and have finite resources in trying to meet the demands for educational places, funding is ultimately going to be a very important part of the whole question. The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that it is appreciated that sixth form colleges are designed for people who want a more structured sixth form type approach but do not have sixth forms available to them.
Much argument took place concerning the differences between colleges and sixth forms and how people sometimes preferred colleges. Sixth form colleges, and indeed sixth forms, are not actually identical to the school process until that point. They merely provide more of a structure and often more of a sense of identity. That is why they are very valuable. Colleges can be very impersonal places which impose new disciplines on certain pupils—perhaps "students", would be a better term to use at this point. Therefore, the sixth form college is a type of school. Indeed, it is closer to a school due to the fact that everybody is doing similar types of courses, as opposed to the tertiary colleges which are going to have a far wider cross-section of courses and students and thus less of a sense of community about them. That is something I found when I was a student and
164
from speaking to people attending these colleges in more recent times. Unless we address the fact that this sector is providing a very important service and thus requires some form of consideration in providing this service, economics may well mean that they are about to die as the courses themselves can be offered at colleges. But the way in which teaching takes place and the atmosphere in which the students are taking part in the courses will be very different. That is what we are aiming at in this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is bound to be the case that the funding councils will be subject to economic pressures at all times. Given that the cost of sixth form colleges is 50 to 100 per cent. higher than the cost of further education colleges, I do not see how one can avoid the statement that sixth form colleges may not survive. I cannot believe that either this Government or the likely successor from this side of the House will suddenly find a great pot of gold with which to finance FE colleges. Therefore I cannot see the FE colleges receiving a great deal of extra money. What I can see is almost everyone being tempted to bring down the costs in sixth form colleges, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, to get rid of them. That cannot be the Government's intention. I do not believe for one moment that that is their intention. Therefore, the reason for having this explicitly on the face of the Bill is to provide a minimum safeguard in that respect.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the amendment would require a further education funding council, in fulfilling its duty to avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure, to take into account the unit costs of sixth form colleges which it is implied would invariably be higher than those of other colleges in the new sector. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for explaining in some detail why apprehensions in this respect arise.
The amendment touches on two issues which are of great interest to us. The first is the interpretation of "disproportionate expenditure" in Clause 2 and the second is the future funding of sixth form colleges, which is what the discussion so far has been mainly about. My noble friend Lord Cavendish gave a definition of "disproportionate" during the Committee stage. I shall not go over that ground again except to stress that the avoidance of disproportionate expenditure should not be taken to mean the avoidance of expensive provision. Subsection (5) of Clause 2 simply provides that the funding councils' expenditure must be proportionate to the purpose for which the expenditure is applied. The councils will not therefore be prevented from making provision at a particular institution in a particular area or for a particular subject but they will have to consider the purpose for which the expenditure is being provided. The purpose must of course include meeting the reasonable needs of all persons to whom the duty to secure education facilities extends. Those words are to be found in Clause 2(3) (a).
I hope your Lordships will agree that this provision is a sensible one. There is a read across from disproportionate to what is reasonable. It is certainly in line with what exists at present in the Education Act

165
1944, which requires local education authorities to discharge their functions in a way which avoids unreasonable public expenditure. The wording is slightly different but there is exactly the same intention and effect.
Against that background I believe the amendment to be unnecessary. In considering whether or not the funds that they make available to sixth form colleges are disproportionate to their purpose, the funding councils will need to take account of both the cost of the education provided by the colleges and the purpose for which that cost is being applied. If the cost of such provision is indeed higher but this can be justified in the council's opinion by reference to the purpose, then Clause 2 most certainly would not prevent such provision being made.
Costs in the new sector will vary. The White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century made clear that the funding councils would be able to apply weightings to student numbers and to take account of differential costs of certain types of study and additional costs arising from such factors as special educational needs. As I said in Committee when we debated this very point, there is no question of imposing an inflexible funding framework on the new sector. The funding reforms are intended to allow different institutions to make the most of their differences.
I hope that what I have said will reassure the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Addington. I am making a substantive point. I am not just, as a matter of rote, saying that we do not agree with an amendment. I am saying that we believe that in Clause 2 we are tackling in a different way the same problem identified by the noble Lords. We are saying that the funding councils must consider the reasonable needs of all the persons to whom their duty to provide education extends and then see whether those needs are by any chance disproportionate to the expenditure. That is the meaning of "disproportionate" in Clause 2. It does not mean that because particular provision is expensive that must be wrong. It may mean sometimes that expensive provision is right and needs to be met.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is always good at sounding reasonable. He has come a long way towards meeting me. Unfortunately, he always makes me a little wary because from the impression he has given I am not quite sure how far he has come. I should like to read what the noble Lord has said and see whether he has indeed come as far as I think he has. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert ("This subsection shall not preclude expenditure made under section 4.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendment No. 31. The amendment has certain
166
similarities to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. In both Clauses 2 and 3 we wish to add the words,
"This subsection shall not preclude expenditure made under section 4",
in order to qualify this difficult word "disproportionate". It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has dealt with my point in answering Amendment No. 24. However, I should like to explain very briefly why we consider these amendments to be necessary.
We are concerned to define "disproportionate expenditure" so that the term cannot be used in respect of spending on students under Clause 4. I wish first to establish that the kind of students I am talking about are those who need expensive equipment or expensive human help to enable them to engage in their studies in higher or further education. Naturally enough the provision of additional buildings or the modification of buildings is expensive. The computers used by blind people cost more than £5,000. Someone who is expert in helping a deaf student may be required at a cost of perhaps £10 or £15 an hour. That is expenditure very much in excess of that which would be required by any student who does not have learning difficulties. However disproportionate that may seem, it is not disproportionate in relation to the need of the blind student. The expenditure is very much in proportion.
It is certainly not our view that the expenditure necessary for a blind or deaf student can be determined in regard to numbers when comparing what is the average that is necessary for students. The student who needs these extra aids will always appear to be in need of disproportionate expenditure. For that reason we are trying to clarify the expression in the Bill.
When we ran over this ground in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, was helpful. At one stage he gave a definition of "disproportionate" which I shall now quote. Disproportionate expenditure,
"is expenditure which is out of proportion to what is being provided for".—[Official Report, 9/12/91; col. 570.]
He then referred to the "reasonable needs" in Clause 2(3)(a). When I questioned him—thinking that that definition was very useful—as to whether he would consider including it in the text of the Bill, he said that he saw no reason why it should not be included, subject to taking advice. Since that time I have noted that he has not put down that definition. I do not blame him for it, but I also see that there is some impairment, if I may put it that way, in the definition. It is not watertight.
I do not believe that I need to go into the matter in detail. I merely say that if I had been the Minister, I should not have put down the amendment, but he kindly said he would consider it. However, I am not clear whether or not this amendment is necessary so I move it in a spirit of inquiry. I feel that my amendments to the two clauses make it clear beyond peradventure that disproportionate expenditure shall not apply to expenditure under Clause 4. If the amendment is necessary, I very much hope that Ministers will accept it. If it is not, I hope that they will explain why. In that spirit, I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, he frankly stated that he wondered whether the amendment was truly requisite. I do not believe that it is, when taken with the clause. I understand the concern but do not think it should be taken into the statute. If the amendment is not necessary, it can only be either otiose or confusing.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, these amendments are important for the interests about which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, spoke. They would qualify the requirement on the further education funding councils to avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure by specifying that the requirement does not preclude expenditure on provision for students with learning difficulties. While the Government accept the sentiment behind the amendments, it ought to be achieved in the way that I believe it is achieved in the text of the Bill.
First, perhaps I may say that I fully understand the concern which has given rise to the amendments; it is that the requirement to avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure might at the same time restrict the funding councils in making provision for students with disabilities. However, this is neither the intention nor is it, I believe, the effect of the requirement in the Bill.
As I mentioned at the previous stage and repeated this evening, the reference to disproportionate expenditure is intended to exclude expenditure which is out of proportion to the need being met, not to rule out provision which is necessarily expensive, such as provision for students with disabilities. That intention is set out on the face of the Bill. Clause 2(3)(a) provides that a funding council shall provide sufficient educational facilities,
"to meet the reasonable needs of all persons to whom the duty extends".
But, under subsection (5), a funding council must avoid disproportionate expenditure, meaning disproportionate to meeting the reasonable needs under Clause 2(3)(a). This is very much in line with the present law where the Education Act 1944 talks in Section 76 about avoiding unreasonable public expenditure in providing educational facilities.
The noble Lord suggested at the Committee stage that the Bill might define the word "disproportionate". He has referred to that this evening. For the reasons I have just explained, we have concluded that for the purposes of this legislation the meaning of the phrase "disproportionate expenditure" in the present text is clear as it stands. Furthermore, we intend to spell out in guidance to the funding councils that precluding disproportionate expenditure does not, as I said, rule out provision which is necessarily expensive, such as that for students with disabilities. This will be guidance from the Secretary of State to the funding councils making clear the uses to which they can put the grant which he gives them. There need be no fear that such guidance would be ineffective or would not be attended to.
168
I hope that that additional assurance may make the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, feel that I have given a reasonable reply to an important amendment. Put bluntly and shortly, I believe that the text of Clause 2 is clear that "disproportionate expenditure" means out of proportion to the purpose for which the expenditure is applied—namely, meeting the reasonable needs of the people for whom the expenditure is incurred. The noble Lord gave the example of expensive facilities which are necessary for students with disabilities. That is the right way to go about it.
At the same time, behind what the noble Lord said lies an apprehension. I hope that the assurance I have given about guidance to the funding councils may be useful in that respect.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I have seldom received such a welcome reply to an amendment which I had put down but which the Minister was not able to accept. He has been able to give me not just one assurance but two assurances that what we seek to achieve through the amendment will be fulfilled. This makes assurance doubly sure, because he said, and of course I accept, first, that what we seek to achieve is already accomplished by the drafting of the Bill—obscure though it is to some of us who have been worrying about "disproportionate expenditure". Secondly, it is a magnificent plus to have the assurance that this difficulty which we have found will be spelt out in guidance. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for that double assurance. My amendment is therefore otiose and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 2, line 42, at end insert:
("(7) In discharging those functions a council shall make it a condition of any grant paid to an institution for the provision of full time education for persons who have not attained the age of 19 years that a charge may only be made for such provision in circumstances where a comparable charge may be made in respect of a registered pupil at a school under sections 106 to 111 of the Education Reform Act 1988.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I make no apologies for returning to this subject: I regard it as absolutely fundamental. Although other noble Lords and I had a few points to make about charging at the Committee stage, I believe that we need to go over a little of the ground again.
One of the great merits of the Education Reform Act 1988 was that it endeavoured to make clear what was meant by free education within the maintained schools. There have been some technical difficulties with it which I appreciate we have still not quite been able to solve. However, it is much to the Government's credit that they tried to deal with the matter and we strongly supported them on it.
As we move into the subject of charging, difficulties arise. There is no difficulty about pupils who will still be at school in the range of 16 to 18 or 19 years. There is some difficulty in agreeing whether we mean 16 to 18 years or 16 to less than, or equal to 19. However, we

169
all know the group we are talking about. Those pupils in schools cannot be charged for their education. There is a question about charging for extras; that is one of the technicalities of the 1988 Act which has not quite been solved.
When we debated this in Committee, the Minister pointed out something to me which I must admit I did not know. It was that it is a matter of custom and practice that other people in the same age group engaged in the same or similar courses full-time in further education colleges would not pay fees. It is purely a matter of custom and practice that they do not do so, not a matter of law. As the sixth form colleges move into the FE sector, the Government have taken the view, as I see it, as a matter of logical consistency, that fee paying—I am concentrating on full-time students, although there are matters to do with part-time students that I should like to have debated but we have no time for it—could apply to students, as we have to call them, in sixth form colleges, but, again, we are reassured that custom and practice—habit if one likes—will prevent that happening.
However, that is not good enough. A point on consistency that I missed making in Committee I can make now. If it is consistency that we are looking for, then consistency can move in either direction. I am talking about the principle for the moment. We can allow fee paying in the new sixth form colleges within the FE sector or, logically, we could remove from the FE sector the right to charge fees. I should have made that point in Committee. If consistency is what matters, the obvious amendment to the law is the reverse of the one the Government have chosen; namely, they should not rely on custom and practice but should make it a matter of law that all 16 to 19 year-olds in full-time education receive their education free of charge.
I am not concerned with the minutiae of extras for flour, equipment and other matters. We all know what we are talking about. If there are minutiae that my amendment does not cover, I shall not find acceptable from the Government a reply that says that there are details that have not been dealt with. What matters here is the principle. The principle is that full-time education for 16 to 19 year-olds should be free as a matter of law. I do not understand why the Government, having gone to so much trouble over the 1988 Act—I repeat that I am aware of how difficult it was—have not taken the opportunity to make that clear for the whole of that age group in the FE sector, if that is where they are going to be.
The only reason that the Government could have is that fee paying may one day become a possibility. I hope that the Government will say that they, or successors from their party—if we have to suffer that in the future—do not have the slightest intention of introducing fee paying for 16 to 19 year-olds. If that is their view, they should accept the amendment. If they do not like its drafting, they have time to put forward their own amendment. This is not a minor matter. It lies at the heart of our education system. It is vital that there should be no fee paying. As it turned out, I did
170
not understand that it is a matter of custom and practice for that age group in the FE sector, but it should now become a matter of law. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord for clarification. My first question is: is it suggested that there is any fee paying at the moment? Secondly, is it supposed that the Government that I support will impose a fee-paying regime? Is it on the cards that the party opposite, or either of the parties opposite, would impose such a regime? If it is not, why is this a matter of such burning importance?
6.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I might be able to answer the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It is not suggested that fees are being charged at present in the FE sector; it is not suggested that the Government have any present plans for introducing charging. We accept the assurances that the Minister gave in Committee on that subject. On the other hand, when one puts something on the statute book, one puts it there for all governments until it is repealed.
We are aware of the acute financial pressure that there is on educational institutions of all sorts and in all places. If we have custom and practice only preventing the charging of fees in one place and statute preventing it in another, and if those two places will be in competition one with the other, we do not believe that we have a level playing field.
Under the Bill, we shall have many institutions being moved from the local authority schools sector into the further education sector—being transferred out of an area where fee charging is restricted by statute into one where it is restricted by custom and practice only. As we have already heard in the important debate on sixth forms, there is the possibility of school sixth forms in one sector, in effect, competing with sixth form colleges in the other sector. If one of those in that competition is subject to a financial restriction which does not apply in the other, we do not have a level playing field. We should have a level playing field.
For avoidance of anomaly and significant doubt and because we should be much safer if the Government were to see their way to accepting the amendment, they should place it on the statute book and complete the helpful work of clarification that they began in 1988.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, replies, perhaps he will justify why he has again made the division between full-time and part-time education. That is an antiquated approach. It may be convenient for the amendment, but, were it to be accepted by the House, we should have that division.
My noble friend may be in a better position than the noble Lord to reply to my next point. The noble Lord made lighthearted references to the fact that he was not talking about cooking ingredients and that type of thing. Will my noble friend tell the House the extent to which it is at present possible to charge in schools and sixth form colleges, because there is a

171
difference between basic tuition, which, I understand, is, as in Scotland, free, and the various additional provisions for which a charge may be made?
I remember spending many hours on the education committee in which I was involved, identifying what within the law those additions to the basic provision might be. I do not believe that the situation in that respect is any different south of the Border. Will my noble friend confirm clearly that school education is free except for one or two little things like the flour we put into the cakes? People take the flour and then return home with the cake in recompense, as it were. A similar thing happens with woodwork. I suspect that there are other parts of education for which charges can in law be made. That will apply likewise to further education. It is an important point. I ask my noble friend to clarify it and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to clarify the earlier query.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be to preclude colleges in the new sector from charging for all tuition and associated costs for full-time education for those under 19 years of age. The only exceptions would be those in the limited circumstances in which schools are permitted to charge under the Education Reform Act 1988 in respect of individual tuition in the playing of a musical instrument.
As I emphasised in the debate on a similar amendment in Committee, young people aged 16 to 18 in full-time further education are not charged for the tuition they receive. There is no legislative basis for that; it is entirely a matter of practice. I gave an undertaking that it is not the intention to change the practice. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for saying that is accepted. I know it is accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but the noble Lord makes the point that what is needed is a change in the law. However, it is also a matter of practice in many further education colleges to make charges for materials, books and other requirements.
The provisions in the Education Reform Act relate to schools. Education provided by colleges is often very different from that in schools. In many areas it involves greater use of materials. It must be left to colleges to decide whether to provide those materials free of charge or whether to make a charge to students. If they were obliged to provide them free of charge in all circumstances, they would lose an element of the existing freedom they have over the distribution of their resources.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked me to what extent it is possible in schools and colleges to charge for ingredients, materials and things of that kind. I believe I have now answered that point. I refer to the limited circumstances in which schools are permitted to charge under the Education Reform Act 1988. However, I wish to verify that. I shall write to my noble friend if I have been inaccurate.
I wish to reiterate the point I have just made. We are talking about a difference of scale here. There is undoubtedly, particularly for students on certain courses, a far greater use of materials of various kinds in college courses than is the case in schools. In this regard it is important to allow for flexibility. That
172
flexibility would not occur if this amendment were accepted. I am sure your Lordships would not wish to introduce an amendment which would inhibit colleges from offering particular types of course—for example, craft courses, catering courses and other courses of a vocational nature much in demand—because with the cost of materials they consume a disproportionate share of the college's resources.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me for making a point that often riles the House. Given that many further education colleges already charge for materials, this amendment by precluding them from doing so in future would lead to an increase in public expenditure and to a need for a shift in resources from other parts of the education system.
I repeat that the Government regard this amendment as one that is liable to deny colleges the freedom we are anxious to give them. I am not referring to the payment of fees for tuition. I have given an undertaking on that matter and I know that undertaking has been accepted by noble Lords. There is no intention to change the practice as regards that matter. However, other charges made by the further education sector—irrespective of whether one applauds them or not—provide a freedom which colleges have at the present time. By accepting this amendment we would preclude that freedom. That is why I cannot accept it.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I must say first of all to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that I was unable to reply to his three questions because of the rules of procedure on Report stage. I do not wish the noble Lord to think I was unable to say anything on those matters. Indeed I realise the noble Earl, Lord Russell, dealt with them.
I am extremely unhappy with the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. He did exactly what I asked him not to do in concentrating on the minutiae and the trivia of this matter rather than on the fundamental principles involved. This issue has nothing to do with ingredients required for certain courses although I should say that such ingredients have posed difficulties in schools. This issue concerns the fundamental principle that education in the compulsory sector and in the full-time post-16 sector should be and must be guaranteed to be free. I always accept the noble Lord's bona fides, but that is not what this amendment is about. It is not about the Government pledging in their dying days not to introduce this kind of measure. It concerns what we regard as the provision of free education in our country.
I should refer to an anomaly here. When sixth form colleges enter the further education sector under the terms of this Bill, textbooks that were provided free when sixth form colleges were classed as schools will have to be provided by the students themselves. I wonder whether the Government will widely publicise the fact that from now on a considerable number of students will bear the cost of providing materials that were hitherto provided by the state. Of course I accept that there is a public expenditure aspect to this matter. As someone who used to regard himself as being knowledgeable about public expenditure, I should point out that we are discussing small sums here. We

173
are not discussing massive sums of money. If the Minister wishes to protect the ingredient cost aspect, I would be happy to see him table an amendment to that effect. However, he has not given the remotest indication that the Government take this matter as seriously as they should. I wish to divide your Lordships' House.
6.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 27) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Airedale, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Avebury, L.

Judd, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Parry, L.

Cobbold, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Desai, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Donoughue, L.

Rochester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Shepherd, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

[Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Grey, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Guildford, Bp.

Underhill, L.

Hampton, L.

White, B.

Hamwee, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Ampthill, L.

Denham, L.

Arran, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Astor, V.

Elibank, L.

Auckland, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Balfour, E.

Elton, L.

Belstead, L.

Erne, E.

Blake, L.

Ferrers, E.

Blatch, B.

Flather, B.

Blyth, L.

Fortescue, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Gridley, L.

Brookes, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Butterworth, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Byron, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Henley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Carnock, L.

Hives, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Hooper, B.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Howe, E.

Coleraine, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Craigavon, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kenilworth, L.

174

Kimball, L.

Reay, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Renton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Renwick, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Liverpool, E.

Savile, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lyell, L.

Selsdon, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Shannon, E.

Macfarlane of Beardsden, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Marlesford, L.

Stockton, E.

Merrivale, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mersey, V.

Strange, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Morris, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Mottistone, L.

[Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Sudeley, L.

Munster, E.

Teviot, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nelson, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Norfolk, D.

Trumpington, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Ullswater, V.

Orkney, E.

Vivian, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Waddington, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Wharton, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.

Quinton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.4 p.m.
Clause 3 [Part-time education, and full-time education for those over 18]:
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 28A:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert:
("(c) long term and short term residential educational opportunities for mature adults at both further and higher education levels.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 28A I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 30. Both amendments are concerned with long- and short-term residential education but Amendment No. 30 is rather wider than Amendment No. 28A.
In Committee we spoke in some detail about long-term residential colleges and their future. I want to return to that subject. There was consensus in Committee about the value of the work of the long-term residential colleges. Those of us involved with the earlier amendment were grateful to the Minister for saying that the Government recognise the unique place which those colleges hold in the education system. We were also grateful to him for underlining the Government's firm belief that the colleges have a role to play in the new sectors of further and higher education. Nevertheless, as I said when I withdrew my earlier amendment, despite the Minister's assurances, there was still doubt as to whether or not the colleges would be able to fulfil all the functions which they currently undertake.
My noble friend Lord McCarthy spoke with great conviction about the special role which the colleges perform in higher education, not just in providing access to higher education but in higher education itself through their ability to recognise and directly develop academic potential without regard to

175
previous academic qualifications. He also spoke of their preference for students involved in community work.
Amendment No. 28A attempts to ensure that the residential colleges will be able to continue with all the aspects of education with which they are presently concerned. I have in mind in particular the work of Ruskin College and its two-year diploma course.
In Committee the Minister promised that guidance would be given to the funding councils that the distinctive characteristics of those institutions must be fully taken into account. We welcomed that. It will be most helpful. Nevertheless it does not tell us now, nor does the Bill, what the mechanics for carrying that out will be. Amendment No. 28A is intended to make clear that both the further and the higher education aspects of residential education will be continued.
The amendment also refers to short-term residential opportunities. That is a function which the long-term residential colleges also perform and perform very effectively, as do the short-term residential colleges, which were not mentioned during the Committee stage. I should like to refer briefly to their work, which is also covered by Amendment No. 30.
There is an association of adult residential colleges which represents 24 colleges offering short-term courses of between two and seven days' duration in a wide variety of vocational and non-vocational subjects. The association has indicated that that programme is one of intensive study away from the distractions of home and family commitments in a supportive and caring environment. It is particularly suited to women and those who are approaching or who have reached the age of retirement and who are often unable to attend weekly day or evening classes. That applies particularly in the case of women because of their family or other commitments. The association is concerned that the current provision of both vocational and non-vocational courses in the residential colleges will not be protected under the Bill. That is largely because, by their very nature, the short-term colleges attract students from all parts of the country. Most of the courses attract over 50 per cent. of their students from other parts of the country in addition to the students coming from within the local authority area in which the short-term residential college is based. They therefore perform an important function in adult education and it is proper that we should take account of their needs. They are included under both Amendments Nos. 28A and 30.
In Committee the Minister said that it was not appropriate to refer to the long-term residential colleges because we were singling out a particular type of institution which, as he said, important though they are, are only a small part of the FE sector. Amendment No. 30 refers to four aspects of adult education: the long-term residential courses, the short-term residential courses, the WEA and the four London colleges. In that respect, when one takes account of the colleges of further education and the range of voluntary adult education, we more or less encompass in the Bill the whole range of education for
176
adults. It is therefore appropriate that the amendments should be included in the Bill and I hope that the Minister will accept them. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, my name is to these amendments and I should very much like to support my noble friend.
We said a great deal about residential colleges at the last stage and they were pleased with the vote of confidence that they received in the debate in Committee, but they are still extremely anxious about certain aspects. I should like to ask again about student numbers. I mentioned last time that Coleg Harlech had more or less been informed by the Welsh Office that it would not be allowed to increase its numbers. There was some reassurance from the Minister, but I should like to ask again about that.
All the colleges are still anxious about whether they will be properly funded to enable them to continue all the different work that they do. I gather that they would like a guarantee that the funding councils will continue to fund all core aspects of their work at both further and higher education levels, including training for citizenship and participation, in line with their missions. That would be in parallel with the reply that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, gave to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on 21st November last year offering a similar guarantee in relation to the WEA. He said at cols. 1124–5;
"There is therefore no question of the Government's proposals reducing the WEA's public subsidy. I can give the noble Earl an assurance that the funding council will be able to fund all aspects of the WEA's work, not just those courses listed in Schedule 2".
I understand that that is the assurance that the residential colleges would like from the Minister tonight.
I should like to say a word more about short-term residential colleges which have been mentioned by my noble friend because we did not say very much about those in Committee. I have received a communication which shows that there is a good deal of anxiety, particularly because the colleges supply short courses for people outside their own area, which means that people must attend on a residential basis in order to take the courses. They want the work of the short-term colleges to be protected by inserting into the Bill a requirement for local education authorities to maintain the current provision of residential adult education courses in short-term residential colleges. Alternatively, they would like to seek direct financing of short-term residential colleges from the FEFC, but it is critical that that funding should be for the whole range of activities carried out in the colleges and not merely for those areas of work covered by Schedule 2 to the Bill.
I hope that, although the amendments may not be ideally drafted to cover the colleges, the spirit in which they have been tabled might be accepted by the Government and we may therefore have a little more guarantee and reassurance than we had last time.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, perhaps I may rise briefly to support, at the very least, the spirit of the amendments for the simple reason that anything that ensures a wide variety of educational opportunity should be supported. That is especially so with regard to the provision of a residential college for mature students so that they may undertake what are in many cases non-structured and non-conventional courses. That is surely a great contribution to the educational opportunities available to the whole of our community and it should therefore be supported.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am most grateful to my two noble friends who have spoken to these amendments. For obvious reasons, looking at the clock, I do not want to detain the House, but I should like strongly to support the arguments that they have put forward.
As some of your Lordships know, I have had almost a lifelong association with the Welsh residential college, Coleg Harlech. We are still anxious about how far we shall be controlled in what we are supposed to be doing. For example, many of us believe that it would be far better to allow us to continue with certain two-year academic courses in the residential college. We have made arrangements with various universities—not every one in the United Kingdom, but with a number of them—whereby anyone who takes the university-controlled diploma and reaches a sufficient standard will be accepted by the university as a second-year student. In other words, he or she will spend two years in the residential college and only two years obtaining a degree.
The proportion of our students who go on to higher education is very high. It is foolish to expect many of them to spend their first year with a lot of young people who have just left the sixth form and are trying to manage their bank accounts. It is far better for such people to have the extra person-to-person, or at any rate fairly small group, education in the residential college and to have the two years there and the two years in the university than to do it the other way round and say, "You can do it for one year, but not for two. That is extravagant". If you know the kind of people who come to the long-term residential colleges, you know perfectly well that for the majority of them two years at college and two years at university is a much better bet.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, both the amendments concern the long-term residential colleges and the short-term residential colleges which, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and other noble Lords, we did not discuss quite so much last time. The second amendment—Amendment No. 30—also concerns the Workers' Educational Association and the four specialist adult colleges in London.
The long-term residential colleges, the WEA and the four London colleges are all to be designated for funding by the further education councils under Clause 28. The short-term residential colleges will either continue under the auspices of their local education authority or, if they offer the kind of
178
provision that would come under Schedule 2, they may apply for funding by the councils under Clause 6(5).
At the risk of repetition, perhaps I may say a few words of amplification in that respect. The six long-term residential colleges—Ruskin, Plater, Hillcroft, Fircroft, Co-operative and Northern—were reviewed earlier this year by the Department of Education and Science. In the light of the review, Ministers recognised the unique place that those colleges hold in providing residential education for adults who have missed out during their school years. The Government decided that it would be appropriate for the colleges to enter the new further education sector. That will happen under Clause 28. It will enable their needs for capital funding, for example, to be considered alongside those of other colleges. Similar decisions were reached in respect of Coleg Harlech in Wales.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, made a point about whether the funding council will support all kinds of courses in the long-term residential colleges. When looking at the results of the review, my colleagues in the department believed that there was some scope for sharpening the focus of the colleges' work. After all, things have changed as the years have gone by. There are now many routes into education for adults. There are many opportunities to undertake study in vocational or academic areas and if necessary in basic skills before that. Entry to higher education for adults has become easier. Ministers therefore believed that the long-term residential colleges needed to make the best use of their specialist strengths. That is why the colleges were asked to concentrate on assisting access to higher education for students without conventional academic qualifications who are most in need of residential education. The colleges were also asked to provide courses in which the residential element generally lasts no more than a year and a greater number of short courses so as to increase the number of students who benefit from their facilities.
Noble Lords will forgive me repeating it but this should all be seen as a vote of confidence in the long-term residential colleges. The Government firmly believe that they have an important role to play in the new sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, repeated, we shall make clear in guidance to the funding councils that the distinctive characteristics of those institutions is to be taken fully into account.
The noble Baroness specifically mentioned the apprehensions of Ruskin College over the future of its courses. My understanding is that the college is ready to accept the idea that its residential facilities should be used for only one year by each student as a means of increasing throughput. We welcome that. However, the Government remain firmly of the view that the business of the long-term residential colleges in general and Ruskin in particular should be the provision of courses aimed at people with no or few formal qualifications. Consequently, we have some difficulty with Ruskin's proposals for a one-year course at a level equivalent to the second year of its

179
existing course, with progression routes from other forms of further education and for diplomas which rely on a high entry standard.
On the other hand, it will be for Ruskin to negotiate with the Further Education Funding Council for England over its role in the new sector. It will also be open to the college to apply to the higher education funding council for funding certain courses. In short, the Bill allows Ruskin and indeed the other colleges a considerable degree of flexibility.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, specifically mentioned Coleg Harlech. Among the many points which the noble Baroness made was one about the level of student numbers for the future and the amount of control that it seemed there was to be over it. I am advised that Coleg Harlech will be free to negotiate over student numbers with the Welsh funding council in exactly the same way as the English colleges. I understand that the Welsh Office has asked the college to plan on the basis that student numbers will be held at a certain level. I believe that the figure is 140 full-time equivalent students. Bearing in mind the present level of numbers, we believe that that sounds entirely sensible but the figure should certainly not be regarded as being set in stone.
Perhaps I may say a brief word about the short-term colleges. Many are directly run by local education authorities and the position on their funding is not different from that of non-residential adult colleges. Incidentally, this is an area in which we are not changing the situation. Let us not forget that the Secretary of State has given an important undertaking—important so far as short-term colleges are concerned—over the funding of adult education for the future. Other short-term colleges are run by voluntary organisations or trusts and some are university centres.
Where short-term residential colleges are run by voluntary bodies, it will be open to them, as at present, to seek support from LEAs for the provision they make which falls within the LEAs' remit. As I said, Clause 6(5) of the Bill is available to them if they seek support for any provision which may previously have been supported by LEAs but which will in future fall within the remit of the funding councils. It will also be open to the voluntary bodies to explore direct with the funding councils the possibility of designation under Clause 28 where they believe that Clause 6(5) is not appropriate to them. So the Bill will not alter the position of the short-term residential colleges.
Amendment No. 28A refers to residential educational opportunities at both further and higher education levels. The noble Baroness will forgive me but I do not think it appropriate to require the further education funding councils to secure the provision of higher education. We remain firmly of the view that the business of the long-term residential colleges in particular should be the provision of courses aimed at people with no or few formal qualifications.
On the other hand, it will be for the colleges themselves to negotiate with the councils over their role in the new sector. It will also be open to them to apply to the higher education funding council for
180
funding certain courses. In short, once again the Bill allows quite a lot of flexibility so far as concerns the long-term residential colleges.
Amendment No. 30 refers to the Workers' Educational Association and the four specialist adult colleges in London. I shall not speak about the WEA because, as the noble Baroness said, I have given an assurance, I believe, on two previous occasions. The Further Education Funding Council for England will be taking over that part of the WEA's funding now handled by the DES—over £2 million a year. The council for Wales will be taking over funding from the Welsh Office. The councils will be empowered to fund all aspects of the WEA's work, not just those courses listed in Schedule 2.
The LEAs also fund the WEA and in the past two years there has been an education support grant for that purpose in England. The grant will continue in 1992–93. We shall then consider whether it needs to continue longer in order fully to embed the funding for the WEA in LEAs' programmes. We believe it right that LEAs should fund the WEA to assist it in its duty of providing further education for adults. We believe that they will want to do so.
The four specialist adult colleges in London are the City Lit, Morley, Mary Ward and the Working Mens' College. I emphasise again that the future of those institutions within the new sector is secure. The Government recognise that they have a regional role in providing courses of all kinds for adults, not just those courses in Schedule 2. The council for England will be able to fund them in respect of all their provision and we do not look to them to make big changes.
Clause 3 is about the general duty on the councils to provide for the further education needs of adults. The councils will look to the long-term residential colleges, the WEA and the other specialist colleges to help fulfil that duty. That is why those institutions are to be included in the new sector. I must say, coming finally to the amendments, that I do not believe it is appropriate to write in special mention of those institutions as the amendments seek to do. I know I repeat my words but such action would single out institutions which form only a small part of the sector when the Government firmly expect that the funding councils will deal fairly with all the institutions in the sector.
I hope that what I have said quite extensively is an assurance that that is exactly what will happen. I apologise for speaking at some length but I know that this is an important matter. That is why it has been raised again. I know also that these are amendments tabled in earnest and that if I did not give proper replies, they would almost certainly be pressed. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press them.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the care that he has taken over the amendments. I am sure that there will be some feeling of relief in certain quarters as a result of the Minister's assurances. Nevertheless they are just assurances. The noble Lord has not been prepared to accept the inclusion of anything in the Bill.

181
Perhaps I may just pick up two points in the Minister's remarks. One concerns the position of the short-term colleges. He said that they are not greatly different from the non-residential colleges. The major difference is that they cater to a much greater extent for people who are beyond the local government authority. That is a principle which the Minister recognised in relation to the four London colleges, which he accepted provide a regional service. The other short-term residential colleges very often provide not just a regional service but also a national service.
On long-term residential colleges, the Minister concluded by saying that it would be wrong to pick them out because they represent only a small part of education. It is precisely for that reason that those colleges are anxious to have their functions and responsibilities included in the Bill. They are a small part of education. They will find it difficult to compete with some of the larger institutions in the further education sector. They will find it difficult to compete with the universities and polytechnics—whatever they are called—in the higher sector.
It would have alleviated their fears considerably if the Minister had accepted the amendment. I am sorry that he has not. In view of that, I must test the opinion of the House.
7.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 28A) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 79.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Airedale, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Birk, B.

McNair, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Parry, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Combermere, V.

Rochester, L.

Craigavon, V.

Russell, E.

David, B.

Seear, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Shepherd, L.

Desai, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Galpern, L.

Tordoff, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

[Teller.]

Underhill, L.

Grey, E.

White, B.

Hampton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Byron, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Astor, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Auckland, L.

Carnock, L.

Balfour, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Belstead, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Blatch, B.

Coleraine, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Denham, L.

Brookes, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Butterworth, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

182

Elton, L.

Munster, E.

Ferrers, E.

Norfolk, D.

Flather, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Fortescue, E.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gridley, L.

Rea, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Harvington, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Selsdon, L.

Hives, L.

Shannon, E.

Hooper, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Howe, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Joseph, L.

Strange, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Liverpool, E.

[Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Lyell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ullswater, V.

Marlesford, L.

Vivian, L.

Mersey, V.

Waddington, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wharton, B.

Morris, L.

Young, B.

Mountevans, L.

*[The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 79 names. The Clerks recorded 80 names.]
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.39 p.m.
[Amendment No. 29 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that Report stage resume again at 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
London Regional Transport has a great responsibility to the public to provide transport to meet passengers' needs in Greater London safely and efficiently. Unfortunately, millions of pounds are being lost every year because of the evasion of fares. Members in this House have always been keen on the idea of a penalty fares Bill and they passed a Bill through all its stages in this House. However, it was lost because it ran out of time in the other place when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is in the Chamber tonight, dealt with the matter as Minister.
It is extremely important that those people who use the system and pay for its service should not be defrauded by others who are unwilling to pay their fares. According to the annual survey, it has been calculated that about £12 million a year is now being lost on the Underground and an additional £17 million on the buses. Although as a direct result of

183
measures recently taken on the Underground the level of fraud has reduced, the losses are still far too high. It is generally accepted that further measures are therefore needed.
The Bill has been through all its stages in the other place and it is hoped that it will become law. It is similar to a measure passed in 1989 giving penalty fare powers to British Rail. The pilot penalty fares scheme of British Rail has reduced the number of people travelling without tickets by around 90 per cent. in the year following implementation. There are plans to extend the scheme throughout Network SouthEast.
As was the case for British Rail, before the measure can be introduced the Secretary of State has to be satisfied on a number of points. I shall not go into detail but they include adequate staffing, sufficient ticket machines, arrangements for monitoring defective machines and the provision of inspectors. There is an appeals procedure for disputed cases. I hope that the Minister will confirm the Secretary of State's responsibilities.
It is at last possible to produce extremely reliable and effective passenger-operated ticket machines. These are able to provide change and are now available at all Underground stations. Ticket machines are currently available 99.9 per cent. of the time. There are never fewer than two machines at any station and at busy stations there are many more. As a result of modern technology it will be more straightforward to reduce the incidence of fraud.
The present maximum single fare on LRT is £3.40 and a penalty of £10 is suggested in relation to that. The charges have been set because of the lower charges on the buses and the Docklands Light Railway.
Staff involvement is essential to the success of penalty fares and staff will be fully consulted. Fraud has increased substantially in recent years. It would be quite wrong to allow those who wish to indulge in fraud to get away with it at the expense of the fare-paying passenger. At the same time, it is important that we ensure that genuine travellers who are not trying to evade the fare will not be penalised due to an error in the system. If a passenger is unable to pay his fare, the penalty fare will not apply if he can prove that no ticket was available at the station. If a passenger states that he could not buy a ticket, the onus of proof at that stage will be on London Transport. It must prove that the passenger was not telling the truth in saying that the station was closed, that no one was available to sell a ticket or that the machine was out of order.
I have checked the systems and have discovered that British Rail has a permit-to-travel system whereby one can obtain a permit even if one cannot buy a ticket. I asked why that system was not considered by LRT. Apparently its new technology is so good that it will be possible instantly through the central computer system to know whether a passenger is telling the truth in saying that a machine is out of order or that no station staff are available. However, if the passenger wishes to raise one of those reasons after the incident, he has 21 days from the day after the completion of the journey in which to do so. Only then
184
comes the transfer of the burden of proof. The burden of proof first lies upon London Transport. However, if the passenger does not respond with an explanation instantly or within 21 days, the burden of proof will then rest upon him. Clearly, the instantaneous system of checking will not be available 21 days later.
It is important that the measure is introduced as soon as possible in order to make a substantial contribution towards the income of LRT. Recovery of the money that is at present being lost will be of benefit to all other passengers. Penalty fares will act as a deterrent to fraud. More people will find it wiser and cheaper to pay the proper fare. Recovery of the extra ticket revenue must be of benefit to all London Transport passengers. I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
7.46 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for explaining the purpose of the Bill. I must make it clear that I speak from the Dispatch Box in a personal capacity; my remarks are my own. I have no intention of opposing the Bill. My remarks are intended to be helpful and I wish to make some points which the Select Committee might consider.
I have read the Second Reading debate which took place in the other place on 9th July last year. I noticed in particular the points raised by Mr. Tony Banks, the Member for Newham North-West, and Mr. Harry Cohen, the Member for Leyton. Both appear to be regular users of London Underground. I recognise the serious nature of the problem as explained by the noble Baroness and by Mr. Neil Thorne, the Member for Ilford South, who piloted the Bill through the Commons.
The figures to which the noble Baroness referred were accepted by the Minister, Mr. Roger Freeman. However, I should be interested to know exactly how they were obtained. The firms which conducted the surveys stated that they could not give a precise figure of loss. One can readily understand that. The surveys or the monitoring carried out must indicate what evasion takes place, the nature of the evasion and the steps that must be taken to counter it. I understand that the Minister said that the Bill was closely based on the recommendations of a working party set up in May 1986, almost five years ago.
I note the Bill provides that before the procedure can be implemented on any particular route an activating order must be made by the Secretary of State. The Minister stressed that before an order is made and the scheme proceeds there must be fair and workable conditions. During the debate the Minister, Mr. Freeman, stated:
"the Secretary of State will need to be assured that satisfactory arrangements exist for staffing ticket offices and for monitoring and repairing ticket machines".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/7/91; col. 845.]
Noble Lords will recall that I have sometimes been critical of the ticket barriers. However, I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, who assured me that under the new regulations a member of staff

185
had to be on hand. There has been a great improvement in the Underground stations which I have visited.
Nevertheless, I understand that following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on London Underground, a survey indicated that 45 per cent. of the people questioned said that they were regular travellers who had experienced difficulties with regard to ticket barriers. I recognise that there must be a need to use staff as fully as possible both in the interests of efficiency and staff satisfaction. However, in the debate in another place Mr. Tony Banks suggested that the diminution in staff numbers is one of the most obvious reasons for fare evasion. We should take note of that.
Both Members of Parliament from east London gave instances of stations without staff. They stated that it depended upon the time at which they were travelling. There are problems also at stations without ticket machines. Moreover, there are ticket machines which cannot deal with, for example, concessionary fare tickets. Of course problems are also created when stations are closed.
In previous debates in this House I have referred to my personal experiences. I intended to travel today by tube from my local station but it was closed. It is closed at certain periods of the day. That can only be due to inadequate numbers of staff. It may be argued that the people who live at Buckhurst Hill are so respectable that it would be worth the risk of losing a little money rather than paying staff to man the booking office.
There has been a problem also when the booking office at Buckhurst Hill station has been closed, particularly in the height of the tourist season, as regards paying the excess fare. One must join a queue of 20 or 30 people in order to pay a fare which one wanted to pay at Buckhurst Hill but could not because the station was not manned.
The Members of Parliament in another place said that in their experience evasion took place mainly after six o'clock at night. They emphasised, as I do, that adequate training must be given as regards inspections carried out on trains. There is a problem about inspections at peak periods. I use the Central Line. I can assure your Lordships that no ticket inspector could possibly go along the train to inspect tickets at peak periods. The question of congestion on trains must be looked into carefully if the aims of the Bill are to be carried out in the way we should like.
I turn now to the problem of unmanned stations. Because I cannot get a taxi at Buckhurst Hill station I go to the next station where I can get a taxi. I cannot recall an occasion in the past two months when there has been anyone to receive my ticket at Loughton station. Again, that can only be due to the inability of London Transport to engage the necessary staff. One presumes that that is for financial reasons.
Where there has been an inspector, I have always found him to be extremely courteous and he has done his job in a proper manner. I have no criticism as regards that. However, I do not know how one deals with the problem of inspection on trains during peak
186
periods. I believe that it is necessary to rely solely upon the ticket barriers at peak periods and if there is a problem with them that creates great difficulties.
I refer also to the problems raised by Mr. Harry Cohen, the MP for Leyton. I appreciated the fact that the agents for the Bill and representatives of London buses and London Transport met me to discuss the points which had been raised in the course of the Second Reading debate in another place and which were referred to by Mr. Neil Thorne. Noble Lords may ask why I am interested in the points raised by Mr. Cohen. For the first 34 years of my life I lived in Leyton and for 11 of those years I was the honorary secretary/organiser of the constituency party organisation. When I travel by car I travel through Leyton along Lea Bridge Road, which is one of the problems to which I shall refer. I do not expect the Minister to be in a position to deal with the details of the bus services going through Leyton and along Lea Bridge Road. However, it may be useful to repeat the points here so that the Select Committee may take a careful look at them.
Noble Lords may ask why I raise these points because the question of bus services has nothing to do with penalty fares. However, if one has to change buses because they are no longer running as far as one wishes to go, there is a possibility of fare evasion.
Mr. Cohen complained in particular of the fact that services 38 and 55 have been cut out. The arguments given to me by the representatives of London buses is that most people using those routes to central London start their journey from Islington and only 8 per cent. use the service from Leyton through to central London. It is argued also that Lea Bridge Road is served by routes 46 and 58 and that route 48 still runs into the City and covers much of the old route 38 as far as Islington. However, if one has to change from one bus to another the possibility of fare evasion arises.
I was surprised to read that Mr. Neil Thorne, in the Second Reading debate in the other place, argued that the changes in cutting out buses had improved reliability and that it had benefited more passengers than it had affected adversely because of bus links being broken. I do not wish to use this occasion for a political argument but it seems to me an irony that if buses are cut out things run more smoothly. That is a point which we must remember as regards the deregulation of buses in London. However, that is a political point which is not concerned with the Bill this evening.
It is suggested also that the reason for cutting out the buses, which has been done on certain routes, including Lea Bridge Road and Leyton, is traffic congestion. There is traffic congestion along parts of Lea Bridge Road, but if buses are cut out where do the passengers go? Are they using the buses which remain and thus causing further congestion on those buses? It cannot be argued that people in the area can use the Underground because it is a long walk from the area of Lea Bridge Road to Leyton station to catch a Central Line train to Walthamstow Central on the Victoria Line. It would provide those people with a good excuse to give their bosses for being late for

187
work. Alternatively, having found out that buses have been cut on those routes, are people using their cars —which is exactly what we do not want them to do?
When I travel by car, as I do sometimes, although I endeavour to use the Underground whenever possible, there is congestion along Lea Bridge Road. It occurs mainly—again I do not expect the Minister to know these local details but they may be useful for the purposes of the Select Committee —from Whipps Cross roundabout to the Bakers Arms and sometimes as far as Markhouse Corner. The congestion is usually caused by cars parked alongside the road. There is a garage with cars for sale and there are usually about nine or 10 cars parked along the road. It is a road which carries not only buses but also commercial lorries. That is the problem; but it is not a justification for taking off those buses.
The main speech of the Minister in the other place came early on and therefore unfortunately no arguments were advanced either from the promoter of the Bill or from the Minister. I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with many of the points raised tonight, though I do not expect him to deal with the detail. However, I hope that those are points of which the Select Committee will take note bearing in mind that my purpose is to see that the Bill is successful. I believe that the points I have raised are relevant.
8 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we on these Benches—on this occasion I speak for my party on the matter since I am obviously in no danger of contradiction—support the system of penalty fares for London transport. It is blatantly unfair that those travellers who buy tickets should subsidise those who do not. It is also unfair to the taxpayers who subsidise the system.
As the noble Baroness carefully pointed out, the system must not be unfair to the passengers themselves. It must operate in a fair way and be seen to operate in a fair way. It must be seen particularly that all care is taken to ensure that passengers can obtain a ticket before embarking on a journey. If for any reason a passenger cannot, that fact must be easy to check. I should therefore appreciate it if we could be told how, there being no facilities available for the sale of the necessary fare, that situation will be interpreted.
The noble Baroness appeared to have a touching faith in modern technology. It is not always shared by those of us who must rely on it. There are many cases, of which probably all noble Lords have experience, when it is impossible to obtain a ticket before travelling; for instance, where the station is not attended either officially or sometimes, I fear, unofficially for shorter periods of time, or where the change-giving machines are not working. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, raised the question of concessionary fare availability. That is important.
I am delighted that there will be instantaneous checking of facilities so that the inspector can be informed. However, will the inspector on the train know? Will he possess a portable machine by which he
188
is able to plug into the central computer? Or will the system depend on his obtaining a name and address and being able to check up when he reaches a station.
I am delighted to hear that in the first instance the burden of proof will be on the authority and not on the passenger. I am dubious about whether it is impossible to check back. Given this wonderful new system, which records what facilities are available on any station on the London Underground system, I should have thought the keeping of records for a limited amount of time would not strain the system too much. The onus of proof could then stay on the authority.
Those are all matters of detail which must be carefully checked at the Committee stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I hope that the Minister, and possibly the noble Baroness, will be able to give some of the answers to the questions I have raised. In the meantime we support the principle of the Bill.
8.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner for so ably introducing the Bill. I am pleased to take this opportunity to set out the Government's attitude to it.
The Government support the LRT (Penalty Fares) Bill before us today as they have LRT's previous Bills. It must be right that those travelling on London Transport's services who deliberately set out not to pay the correct fare should be discouraged from doing so. That is the purpose of the Bill.
Your Lordships may be aware from debates we have had in this House on previous LRT Bills that LRT already has powers to operate penalty fares under the London Regional Transport Act 1984 and the London Docklands Railways Act of 1984, 1985 and 1986. But because there was dissatisfaction with those powers, the Government established a working group in 1986 to review the principles which should apply to penalty fares schemes on public transport. The Bill currently before us has been closely based on the recommendations of the working group.
Your Lordships will know that there have been other Bills with penalty fares provisions which have been approved by Parliament. But your Lordships, quite rightly, will be concerned that the principles of a fair and reasonable penalty system are properly reflected in the current LRT Bill and that honest passengers are fully protected.
I do not wish to comment in detail on the Bill, but there is one important aspect I should like your Lordships to bear in mind. In order for the powers within this Bill to come into effect my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will have to issue an activating order. My noble friend Lady Gardner referred to that, as did the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Beaumont. I can assure your Lordships that no such order will be issued unless the scheme proposed is fair and workable. The sort of things my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be looking for before he makes any activation order are whether all the necessary arrangements are in place to operate the scheme and

189
to protect honest passengers from being penalised if no opportunity to buy a ticket has been provided. That was a point also made by the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Beaumont.
My right honourable friend will also need to be satisfied that there are adequate publicity arrangements to inform passengers about the rules and that procedures for disputes and appeals are in place. In addition he will need to be assured that satisfactory arrangements exist for staffing ticket offices and monitoring and repairing ticket machines; also that ticket inspectors are properly trained to operate the scheme, that they are deployed appropriately and that they have proper identification. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Beaumont.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that it would seem strange—and difficult to justify to passengers and taxpayers alike—if this latest penalty fares Bill from London Transport were to be blocked when Parliament has approved similar provisions for other operators. I hope that your Lordships will support the Bill.
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in the debate. I am interested in the points that have been raised. To reply to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in the first instance the question of concessionary fares and machines not being effective for that purpose is one which London Transport may have to consider. It may be that something on the lines of a machine where one can at least obtain some form of ticket, is the answer. I am in favour of that, but there will have to be consideration of whether it is a practical proposition. If one could obtain something from a machine which states the station, the time and the date, then at least one would have established that although one was not able to obtain a concessionary fare, at least one had proof of being at that station. A concessionary fare would then be available.
The noble Lord asks whether inspectors can manage on the trains. I have seen inspectors on busy central London tube lines in the morning. It is interesting that the people who do not possess tickets are always greatly embarrassed. Knowing that the penalty fares Bill passed this House, I am always annoyed that passengers are never charged more than the cost of the standard ticket when it clearly costs a substantial amount to have someone there checking the situation. If this Bill goes through I am pleased that there will not only be someone checking but also that a penalty will be imposed. That is the important deterrent. I have seen inspectors at work on the central London tube in the peak hour and the system seems to work quite well.
The noble Lord raised the matter of Lea Bridge Road. I too read the debate in the other House and saw that this matter was a subject of interest. I enquired as to the present position. As the noble Lord said, although the issue is not strictly within the lines
190
of this Bill, it was raised in the earlier debate and it has now been raised again. I believe that it will help to place on record the present position.
London Transport has said that it will reconsider the issue of through services between Leyton and central London when bus priority measures have been introduced in Lea Bridge Road. The London borough of Waltham Forest is the traffic authority responsible for bus priority measures of this kind in Lea Bridge Road. London Transport's bus priority unit has held discussions with the London borough of Waltham Forest over developing bus priority measures. A design brief, setting out the area to be studied and the problems to be addressed, has been drawn up and invitations to consultants to tender for the work have been advertised. It is expected that a contract will be let shortly and the successful consultants are expected to start work by the beginning of March 1992. That sounds as if some progress is being made.
I feel very strongly about the point made concerning changing buses and how that is an encouragement to evade fares. It is usually much more expensive to have to take two short trips on buses than if one bus goes all the way. The decision to make bus runs shorter was taken to avoid traffic congestion. I can understand the reason. It is time that London Transport looked into the systems that work in other countries where there is a continuation ticket. For example, if one gets on the bus at Oxford Circus and one wants to go past Hyde Park Corner, although the bus finishes there, one has to pay quite a high amount to get as far as Hyde Park Corner. If one were able to use that ticket and to pay only the difference between that and what one would have paid if the one bus had gone all the way, that would be much fairer to the public. Because it would be fairer, there would be less cause for evasion. All the transfer ticket systems work very well, particularly in New York where I am most familiar with the system. These are all matters that should be considered over the years and I shall certainly do all I can to urge that they be considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked about the burden of proof. I wish to clarify that so that there is no doubt about it. In the first instance I may not have been 100 per cent. accurate. Clause 5 of the Bill deals with a person who becomes liable for a penalty fare which is disputed because he says,
"there were no facilities available for the sale of the necessary fare ticket"
either at the London Underground station or the British Rail station where his journey started, or there was a notice or an authorisation of the kind described —that is to say, a notice saying that one can travel without a ticket. In that situation, if the passenger explains to the ticket inspector at the time he is required to produce a ticket that he has not got one for any of the reasons I have just mentioned, then it is for London Transport to prove that the passenger is not correct.
The noble Lord hoped, and reading the Bill I believe it is the case, that if the passenger is given a notice to pay the penalty fare and he gives an explanation within 21 days of his failure to produce a ticket, based on the reasons I have outlined, it remains

191
for London Transport to prove that the statement is not correct. I believe that that is what the noble Lord asked about. The onus of proof changes in a case where a passenger does not provide a statement at the time that he is "caught" or within 21 days. It is then for him to prove that the facts do fall within the grounds I have described. I believe the situation is as the noble Lord put it. I believe that I am able to confirm that that is the situation.
I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. There is the prospect of benefit to all Londoners who use our very valuable transport system. Penalty fares will deal with the opportunist or foolish traveller who believes that it is smart not to pay. I hope that the extra revenue will be of benefit to all. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 8.16 to 8.40 p.m.]

Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 3.
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 30A:
Page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) In respect of education of the type to which paragraphs (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above refer, and to which section 41(1) of the Education Act 1944 as amended applies, a council may—

(a) secure the provision for their area of such facilities as appear to them to be appropriate for meeting the needs of the population of their area; and

(b) do anything which appears to them to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of or in connection with such provision").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as the Minister indicated before adjournment, this amendment relates to the general duties of the funding councils and is intended to try to clarify the responsibilities and the position of the funding councils in relation to these general duties.
The specific duties of the funding councils are quite clear under Schedule 2 of the Bill. However, the general duties are very much less clear. The Bill that is presently before us is rather obscure. I am referring to Clause 3, subsections (3) and (4). Both appear to create a power to secure the provision of a kind to which the duty of the funding council does not specifically extend, but it does so by reference to the subsection which formally defines the duty in the first place; that is, subsection (1) of Clause 3. Subsection (3) states:
"A council may secure the provision of facilities for education to which subsection (1) above applies where they are not under a duty to do so".
One wonders exactly what that means. It would be helpful if the Minister in his response could be more specific.
We have had experience in the debate already today —and certainly we had experience in Committee—of the confusion that appears to exist between knowing
192
what the duties of local education authorities are, and the duties of the funding councils in particular, in relation to part-time education. I refer, for instance, to the position of Bradford College which is currently providing courses from basic literacy through to adult education, vocational education and higher education. Some of this work is on a part-time basis and some is on a full-time basis.
The problems which this college and similar colleges face in interpreting Clause 3 are considerable. It appears that colleges will have to apply to the local education authority for some funding and to the further education funding councils for every single course in which they are involved. That appears to be the position under the clause as it is at present; but as I say, the clause itself is not very specific. Because of the difficulties of the overlapping powers and duties between the funding councils and the local education authorities it is of considerable importance that the extent of these powers and duties should be clearly expressed in the Bill and that any risk of duplication or lack of provision through the confusion, which the Bill at the moment appears to create, should be put right.
My amendment attempts to state quite clearly what the responsibilities would be under paragraphs (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 3, together with the responsibilities which are already clearly stated under Section 41(1) of the Education Act 1944 as amended. My new paragraphs (a) and (b) state quite clearly what the responsibilities of the funding councils should be. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, subsection (3) of Clause 3 enables the funding councils to provide for people who are not part of the population of their areas. The amendment would mean that the council for England, for example, would no longer have clear powers to provide for Scottish or French people living in England. I am sure that that is not what the amendment intends. Moreover, the amendment seeks to give the councils a power to provide education of the kind listed in Schedule 2 when under subsection (1) of Clause 3 they already have a duty. It does not therefore entirely fulfil what is at present intended in the Bill.
The noble Baroness queried the wording at the end of subsection (3) where the words "they are not under a duty to do so" are contained. I give a reassurance that the funding councils do have the powers that are concerning the noble Baroness in this part of her amendment. Under Clause 5(1) the funding councils may fund governing bodies of institutions in the further education sector for the provision of facilities for all types of further education, not just those which the councils have a duty to provide, and for the carrying on of any activities which the governing bodies consider necessary or desirable to be provided in connection with this provision of facilities.
The removal, therefore, by this amendment of subsection (3) would be extremely unfortunate, for the reasons which I gave in my opening remarks, and the power which the amendment seeks to provide is in fact contained in Clause 5(1). I hope that that meets the anxieties expressed by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation, which I followed to some extent but not completely. I shall read in Hansard tomorrow what he has said to see whether it meets completely the purpose of my amendment. My first thought is that the Bill is not as clear as my amendment would make it. However, I shall not press the amendment this evening. I should like to look more closely at what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 3, line 23, after ("by") insert ("adult education and other").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to stress that in making their arrangements the FE funding councils should have regard to Schedule 2 courses being given in their areas by adult education institutions. If the amendment is adopted it will introduce the first explicit reference in the Bill to adult education. For no obvious reason adult education has been wholly subsumed within the total caucus of further education. The fact that it caters for a different age range from most of further education, that its students are largely part time rather than full time and that their motivations, aspirations and work styles are different from those of the students of sixth form colleges or FE colleges in general is completely overlooked.
The immediate reaction to the White Paper when it appeared was that the adult education elements seemed to have been added late in the day for completeness rather than because anyone had given special thought to them. There was no reference to them in the Prime Minister's preface to the White Paper. Indeed the changes implied to the structure of adult education and the egregious division into qualification courses and leisure courses were seen to be wandering in the opposite direction to the integration aimed at in what the Prime Minister wrote. What gave great offence and showed a great lack of understanding of what education is all about was highlighted by the White Paper pronouncement that, save in deprived areas, the courses should be completely self-supporting. The storm waves were such that the intention was rapidly cast into oblivion by the Secretary of State's statement of 24th September. Since then no one in Government now confesses to having supported it in the first place—it should never have been there; but nor should the division of adult education into vocational and leisure courses and nor should other provisions relegating adult education to a second class status. They too should have been left out of the Bill.
We ask for this simple amendment to be accepted as an indication that adult education has a special integral character and a contribution all of its own. We are talking of a service which, according to the Minister, Mr. Eggar, speaking in the Commons on 24th October, has roughly the same number of students as the rest of further education put together. The same statement about numbers was made at col. 716 of Hansard on 10th December. It is a service that
194
is highly valued, has excited no criticism and is doing an essential job in a remarkably cost effective way. If there really is a reason for making it subservient to education for the 16 to 19 year-old age group it has not surfaced yet in any of the debates.
In Committee we proposed an amendment—Amendment No. 66 —at col. 580 of the Official Report for 10th December to relieve this subservience. It would have permitted adult education institutions already successfully providing Schedule 2 courses as part of their curricula to continue doing so and to be directly funded for this part of their work as the agent for their regional funding council. However, the Minister, while sympathising with the intention of the amendment, declared that it would place an awkward constraint upon the councils in performing their functions and would present difficulties of interpretation and judgment. I do not know whether that will remain his view today. Now we ask for the bare minimum.
We remain unclear as to what the phrase "have regard to" means in practice and what sanctions it entails or how the "having regard" is to be monitored; or, if that is thought to be deficient, it is to be appealed about. We fear that it does not confer a great deal of protection. If "have regard to" is nonetheless all that can be hoped for, we ask for adult education to be explicitly mentioned as a reminder that the work it is doing has to be respected and is not up for grabs.
Adult education institutions should not have to work in fear that courses they have been running successfully for a considerable time will be taken away from them or that they will be inadequately funded for them. I hope that the Minister can give a sympathetic response to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the words "shall have regard to", whether they be in primary legislation, secondary legislation or codes of practice, are in effect treated by the courts as mere words of exhortation, unenforceable, as a mandatory statutory duty, by judicial review. However, accepting that adult education has an integral character, surely it is included in the drafting,
"institutions outside the further education … or higher education sector".
If it is, what is the justification for singling out one particular institution from the generic definition?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this amendment seeks to define more closely the types of institution to which the councils would have to have regard in the fulfilment of their duty to secure the provision for adults of the types of further education mentioned in Schedule 2.
In order to fulfil this duty, the Bill requires the funding councils to have regard to—I listened to the interpretation of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway of the impact of those words—education provided by institutions outside the further education and higher education sectors. This amendment would require the councils to take into account education provided by adult education and other institutions. I quite understand why the noble Baroness, Lady David, moved the amendment. However, the difficulty

195
is that the subsection already goes wider than the proposed amendment and would already include all adult education institutions outside the further education sector.
Under Clause 3(2) (a) the councils have a duty to secure facilities which are in such places, of such character and so equipped as to meet reasonable need. In the discharge by LEAs and councils of their duties, and by further education colleges of their responsibilities, they will have to take into account the continuing accessibility of provision to local communities. One test of adequacy is that provision can be reached by the population it is meant to serve. The regional advisory committees will, moreover, have an important role in advising the funding council for England on significant local issues. They will have the job of seeing that local people are properly served. In addition, Clause 6(5) provides that adult colleges and centres which remain under the control of the LEA should be able to apply to FE colleges within the new sector for funds to support that part of their work which falls within the funding councils' remit. The FE college will forward the application to the funding council if facilities for the kind of courses in question would not otherwise be adequate in the locality. If the FE college does not forward the application, its decision will be subject to review by the Secretary of State on the usual Education Act grounds of unreasonableness or failure to perform a duty.
The purpose of these safeguards is to ensure that Schedule 2 provision—courses which fall within the scope of the funding councils' duty—continues to be accessible to local people. It is not to secure the survival of individual institutions.
I have gone into that detail because I think it was worth reminding ourselves of those safeguards. The problem with the amendment is that it does not add to the provisions that are already in the Bill. All that it seeks to achieve is already achieved by the existing wording. Although I understand why the noble Baroness has moved the amendment, I do not think it adds to the Bill. I hope, therefore, that she will consider withdrawing it.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full reply. I agreed to put the amendment down because I was aware of the strong feelings in the adult education colleges among the people who work there and those who take the courses. There is still strong feeling.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, adult institutions may be included, but the people who work there wish to hear that adult education is safe. That is why I put the amendment down and why I hope that the safeguards which the Minister says are there will be recognised. I shall read what he said very carefully and I am glad I put down the amendment because it has given him an opportunity to make clear that the people in question will not be in outer darkness; they will be able to continue doing the same things. We shall come later to amendments on applying directly to the funding councils for support for the Schedule 2 courses and so on. We have put down other later amendments returning to the same point. I thank the Minister for his reply and hope that the people who
196
persuaded me to put this down will be reassured by the response. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 3, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) In discharging its functions under subsection (5) above a council shall consult local education authorities regarding the extent to which the education provided by institutions within the further education sector and the higher education sector is complementary to, and does not duplicate any educational provision made by institutions outside the further education sector of higher education sector.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is in the name of the right reverend Prelate and myself. It concerns a matter of planning and I am speaking also to Amendment No. 72. The amendments are first to Clause 3 and secondly to Clause 11 and the purpose is to ensure that the further education funding council provision and that of the LEA are co-ordinated.
Adult education has always been provided by a spread of bodies, voluntary and statutory, large and small, local, regional and national. Until now the LEA has had a strategic planning function and the duty to secure provision in its area. This duty is now divided between the funding councils and the LEA sector so it becomes essential in the interests of efficiency and economy, as well as for sensible planning, that the two sectors co-operate and co-ordinate their provision.
Cumbersome bureaucratic procedure should not be necessary but the division of functions proposed in the Bill necessarily implies new mechanisms, and some expenditure would be incurred in establishing and maintaining these. I hope that the two amendments, which are alike—both refer to further and higher education—may be taken as sensible planning arrangements so that there is no waste and there is understanding. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I ask the House whether it is correct to single out certain ways of requiring the discharge of functions which may limit the exercise of the function of discharge and exclude other aspects. As a matter of drafting, it is not a technique which is at all usual and is regarded as limiting rather than extending.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, as my name is attached to the amendment, I wish to support it. This is a matter of ensuring co-ordinated and strategic planning but the importance of that is not just for administrative convenience but in order to make sure that there is no further division than necessary between the adult education provided now under so-called leisure time activities and that which is provided which is or can be certificated. Co-ordination is essential between the providing bodies in order to secure that people can move between those two different sectors. That is its importance. It is in consumer interests and there is plenty of evidence to show that many people who start off on adult education do so tentatively and are not able with a good heart and confidence to start a course which can

197
be certificated. However, they can start with some of the less formal patterns of adult education and there must be co-ordination in order to promote the best possible interchange between these two groups. That is why I regard the amendment as important.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, says that the wording may not be as adequate or sufficient as it could be, but it is the principle that is important.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the division of duties to secure provision of further education for adults is clear in the Bill. Under the new arrangements, the duty to provide all types of course for adults will remain. The funding councils will have a duty to secure provision of a Schedule 2 type course; local education authorities will have a duty to secure provision falling outside Schedule 2. Amendments Nos. 33 and 72 would impose on the funding councils a duty to consult local education authorities to ensure that provision for adults made by institutions within the new funding councils sector did not duplicate provision made by institutions outside the new sector.
It is the Government's intention that provision for adults should certainly not be duplicated under the new structure of duties. The relevant parts of the Bill where this is set out are Clauses 3(5) and 11(7), which were drafted with precisely that intention in mind. Both the funding councils and the local education authorities will be required to have regard to provision made by institutions outside their respective sectors under Clauses 3 and 11. They therefore have a duty to be aware of and to take into account any such provision.
The funding councils and local education authorities may well wish to consult one another in the fulfilment of the duty. They may also wish to employ other methods such as gathering information directly from the institutions concerned. However, if I may say so on behalf of the Government, I see no need to prescribe the methods in legislation when it is quite clear from a reading of Clauses 3(5) and 11(7) that there is a firm intention that provision for adults should not be duplicated under the new structure of duties.
For those reasons, I genuinely believe that these two amendments are not necessary. They spell out in a detail which I believe is not necessary an intention or provision which is to be found in two separate clauses with their relevant subsections. On those grounds I resist the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am not satisfied with that reply. It may well be that the amendments could be better worded. I take the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and the Minister, and shall go back and discuss them again. I was not encouraged by what the Minister said. There will inevitably be a little duplication if people are to be served well. People could well start by doing so-called leisure classes and proceed to a subject that will be certificated. They will feel much happier if they can do it in the college that they already attend.
The Minister's description of the division of responsibility caused me some disquiet. I am not
198
altogether happy about it. I should like it to be a little more flexible. Therefore, consultations would be the right thing to have so that people know why certain courses are provided in one place instead of another. I should like to consult further about this matter as I was not happy with the reply. I do not know about the right reverend Prelate, but I should like to read what has been said, think about it, and possibly come back for a final time on Third Reading. For tonight, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 34A:
Page 3, line 25, at end insert ("and no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be reassured to hear that I do not intend to go through all the debate on this subject that we had in Committee; but as it was such an excellent debate it would be churlish of me not to take account of it. Since there are some people here who were not present on that occasion, I owe the House about a minute to explain what I am talking about.
The amendment relates to Clause 3(6), the clause which allows the Minister to vary Schedule 2 by order. It is a classic Henry VIII clause. It is a clause which allows the Minister, by regulation, to alter primary legislation. Our debate on this subject in Committee was exceptionally constructive. In particular, I take account of the point, made by several speakers, that if we are to object to such clauses we must be careful not to draft our legislation in too much detail. In fact we must, on occasion, be abstemious in making demands to put matters on the face of the Bill. That does not mean that there will never be occasions for such demands, but that we need to think twice about them.
That debate was so constructive that I even heard the word "compromise" mentioned. I am sure that if we were able to discuss this matter merely among ourselves in this Chamber we would have no difficulty in compromising; but it takes two to compromise. What I have not yet seen is any sign from Parliamentary Counsel's office that it is aware of any need to compromise on the use of these clauses. They still come thick and fast, and with no attempt made to justify their use on any particular occasion.
If we were to be persuaded that such clauses might, on some occasions, be legitimate there would have to be safeguards. There would have to be a spelling out of circumstances in which they could be used and conditions subject to which they could be used. That is something I have not yet heard coming from the Executive. We cannot merely allow them to be used whenever the Executive sees fit; because, of course, flexibility, as the Executive prefers to put it, is something which is at all times convenient to the Executive. If the Executive can use these clauses whenever it likes we are in danger of losing the special character of an Act of Parliament. So I suggest that there should be at least two principles that should be accepted in any compromise which goes forward. Both of them were originally recommended by the Donoughmore Committee.
The first, which we have not had here, and I hope that we shall if any such clause is offered to us again, is that there should be a special explanation of why we need this clause, in this place in the Bill. I do not just mean that it should be said that it provides flexibility. I mean some indication of why there is a legitimate object here which cannot otherwise be achieved.
The other point which is the subject of the amendment is that I agree profoundly with the Donoughmore Committee that the use of such clauses should always be subject to the affirmative and not the negative procedure. Changing the law, after all, is not a particularly trivial activity. If we read the Minute, we all know that after a Recess statutory instruments fall like snow in Lapland. I do not believe any of us can claim we keep up with all the negative instruments which are tabled and left to lie on the Table. If the law can be changed by a negative instrument, it can perfectly well be changed without anyone in this House knowing anything about it. I can see that that may create great flexibility but from a parliamentary point of view I do not know whether we should regard that flexibility as a good thing.
However, if the affirmative procedure is used, we at least have to be told that the Minister is changing the law. We may think that is perfectly all right. If that is the case, so much the better. No harm will have been done except the use of five minutes of the time of this House, and God knows that has happened before. Then at least we can approve a measure if it is all right or we can try to do something about it if it is not all right. As regards the use of Henry VIII clauses, that is a minimum condition. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support this amendment. I hope noble Lords will consider for a moment the form in which Schedule 2 on page 68 of the Bill is written. It states:
"The descriptions of courses of further education referred to in section 3(1) of this Act are the following".
That sentence does not mean the courses include the following. The schedule is quite specific. The drafting of the schedule is an unusual form of drafting to use when listing provisions. In that situation what does an amendment by order, as referred to in Clause 3(6), mean? It must mean either the creation of a new category or rescinding an existing category. A situation such as that is traditionally dealt with by the affirmative resolution procedure. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is totally correct in that regard. Incidentally, one would not meet in that situation the kind of problem that arises with the next amendment. However, I must not speak to that amendment at this stage.
Noble Lords will note that the form of drafting of Schedule 2 is tight. The only way to amend the existing list is either by the form of amendment to be proposed in the next amendment—to bring it on to the face of the statute—or by the creation of a new category or by rescinding an existing category. That is getting very near the function of primary legislation and assuredly should be met at all events with the affirmative resolution procedure.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I hope I may speak briefly to moderate the two speeches we have just heard. I am seriously worried about the amount of legislative time that is incurred by the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We should recognise that both Houses of Parliament spend a far greater amount of time on that activity than any other house of legislature in any part of the world. That cannot be healthy.
If we insert affirmative resolutions in instances such as this, we would spend the best part of the year in legislative session. I do not believe that would be healthy. For myself I acknowledge that this form of words is rather inflexible. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, it is inflexible to state that the courses "are" the following measures rather than "include" the following measures. On the other hand I believe the courses constitute a list which can be changed and is meant to be changed if necessary. The next amendment on the Marshalled List standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), is an amendment such as we have been discussing. I hope the Government will accept it.
After the passing of this Bill, there should be flexibility for the Government to change the courses of further education after due consultation. The question is whether there should be any form of parliamentary control. In this case I do not honestly believe that is of crucial importance. It is of subordinate importance to the main purpose of the Bill. However, if there is to be parliamentary control—which I should like to see—it should be on the basis of the negative rather than the affirmative procedure. I should like to leave that thought with the Minister.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the amendment seeks to circumscribe the power of the Secretary of State to amend Schedule 2 to the Bill by making an amending order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I appreciate the motives of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in proposing the amendment and I should like to say a few words in reply.
The noble Earl's chief concern is that he wishes this House and another place to have the final say with regard to any changes made to the types of education which would be eligible to receive support from the funding councils. We have to ask ourselves whether this issue is one which requires the affirmative resolution procedure. Any change which the Secretary of State might seek to make in future to the provisions of Schedule 2 will be subject to negative resolution. On that point the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was extremely helpful, but on that question perhaps the noble Lord did not notice that the negative resolution procedure applies to changes to Schedule 2.
Your Lordships may well ask whether there is some sinister motive behind the Government's wish to give the Secretary of State power to modify Schedule 2 by order. That is not so. We have included the provision for reasons of sensible planning alone. Schedule 2 details the type of courses which the Government believe need to be secured at national level. The schedule as it stands has been carefully considered and I see no need to modify it immediately or often.

201
However, we must not exclude the possibility that at some future stage it might become desirable to modify Schedule 2 in order to reflect changes in the types and categories of further education available to adults and the ways in which they are described. It would be unnecessary for the Secretary of State to have to put draft proposals before Parliament under the negative resolution procedure. After all, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, we are concerned with a list of courses which can be changed and which it would be reasonable to expect to be changed as the years go by.
I realise that there are always two points of view on such matters. In this particular case I am not sure that this could be termed a Henry VIII clause. I very much hope that it is not because I should not like to be in charge of such a clause. Schedule 2 details the type of courses which the Government believe need to be secured at national level. That has been said again and again. My understanding of a Henry VIII clause is that it allows the Government to do anything; that would not be the case with respect to Schedule 2.
Be that as it may, I believe that the warning given by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson—who has as much experience of such matters as anyone in your Lordships' House—about the overburdening of Parliament is one which we should take seriously. On the one hand it is perfectly possible to say, as your Lordships have this evening, that a particular provision should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. On the other hand it is equally possible to say on another occasion that the House is overburdened and the weight of legislation is growing greater and ought to become less.
A balance has to be found in these matters. I believe that with the negative resolution procedure biting upon this provision that is as far as we ought to go. I do not expect that I have carried the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with me. Nonetheless that is the view that I put to your Lordships.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that reply. I would be exaggerating if I said that he had carried me with him but I believe that we have engaged in a constructive dialogue on the amendment, which I welcome. I do not think that the subject is yet at the point of resolution but we are beginning to achieve a meeting of minds in this area.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his support. I agree that the crucial point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. It is the question of time. I entirely agree with him about the pressure of legislation on this House and another place. I should have preferred to offer the answer to that problem offered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, when he spoke on this subject in Committee; namely, that the Government should reduce the bulk of their legislative programme.
I know that that may not be a particularly easy answer to adopt. I am aware that the Government are under pressure to legislate, as well as creating such pressure themselves. However, my argument is that the length of the Session, like the size of the stomach, is a healthy and necessary check on over-eating. The
202
amount that one can get through in a Session is about the same as the amount of legislation that the Government can constructively think through in one year. If we try to squeeze more into the Session we shall have more legislation which is not effectively digested and that creates work in the courts and ultimately in this House itself. So, granted that I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, said about time, I am not certain whether the correct answer is to make it easier to squeeze more into the time that we have or for the Government to do rather less.
I agree that the crucial issue here is control. Obviously, there must be occasions when things are allowed to go through. If they are not we shall all go mad, which would be a pity. The question is: in whose discretion should it be as to whether matters need to be drawn to the attention of the House? The point on which I am not happy with the proposed resolution is leaving that discretion entirely to the Executive because what the Executive thinks should be drawn to Parliament's attention may not necessarily be that which Parliament thinks should be drawn to its attention. It is perfectly possible for us, when something is moved under the affirmative procedure, not to spend a long time debating it if we think that it gives rise to no problems. We in this House are capable of self-restraint and have proved it many times. I should much rather see a procedure for deciding what will receive scrutiny and what will not which is under parliamentary control rather than one which is under Executive control.
However, as we have a genuine dialogue going forward, I do not want to interrupt it. I do not think that a Division at this stage would be a useful way of carrying forward that dialogue. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Courses of Further Education]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 69, line 7, at end insert:

("(i) a course in independent living skills for persons with learning difficulties,

(j) a course in communication skills for persons with learning difficulties and their families.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is similar to one that I moved and withdrew in Committee. Its purpose is to extend the list of courses for which FEFCs are responsible to include daily living skills courses and communication skills; for example, braille, sign language and lip reading classes.
The previous amendment received wide and strong support in Committee on 10th December, including the support of my noble friend Lady Warnock. At col. 625 my noble friend said:
"It is not generally appreciated that many young people with learning difficulties begin to learn only when they reach the age of about 16 or 17. They are often beginning a moderate upward curve between the ages of 16 and 21. It is therefore absolutely essential that some of these fundamental skills, which have been referred to as life skills, should be taught them at this further education stage. I also believe that

203
unless this provision is in the Bill at the beginning as part of the schedule it will be increasingly difficult to apply to the funding councils for money to cover the courses".
At col. 629 the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said that he would like to reflect hard on the arguments that had been expressed so cogently and with such force. I therefore withdrew the amendment. I also wanted time to go into the question a little more thoroughly. We then had a good meeting with the noble Lord and the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Alan Howarth, at which we discussed a number of issues. It was most useful, but we did not come to any firm conclusion on the question. I do not believe that I heard any mention of the matter when the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, mentioned a package of measures in replying to my Amendment No. 15. I hope to show why we feel that this amendment is necessary.
The value of the courses is not at issue. The question is whether there are good reasons for giving the responsibility for these courses to the funding councils. I believe that there are two main reasons. The first is that including these courses in Schedule 2 would bring about an explicit duty for their provision. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said (at col. 628) that duties not given to the funding councils would remain with the LEAs. While that may be so, the disability organisations say they know from experience that in practice that will not guarantee provision. Currently, not all LEAs provide adequate facilities for life and communication skills courses. Therefore the mere continuation of their duties would not automatically ensure such facilities in the future.
Deaf Accord, which is a consortium of five deaf consumer organisations, describes the current situation with regard to sign language and lip reading classes. On sign language classes for families with deaf children, Deaf Accord states:
"At the moment only a few LEAs provide sign language classes. There are far more parents who want to learn than places available. This shortfall is partly met by voluntary organisations. In either case, families have to pay and the National Deaf Children's Society has been approached by many parents with requests for grants. Recently the NDCS have had to start refusing financial help in this area because they felt too much of their limited resources were being channelled into it. There is a chronic shortage of sign language classes. Those that exist are over-subscribed".
With regard to lip reading classes, Deaf Accord states:
"Lipreading classes are essential for people who have a hearing impairment whose first language is English. Thousands of elderly people need lipreading classes as their hearing deteriorates with age. Provision varies considerably from one area to another. It is sometimes provided by the LEA, sometimes by the health authority and sometimes by social services. Often there is no provision. Usually students have to pay full fees. Given that lipreading classes are essential to enable those whose hearing becomes impaired to communicate, and given that the majority of hard of hearing people are pensioners, the British Association of the Hard of Hearing believes that the provision of free lipreading classes should be a duty on FEFCs alongside adult literacy and numeracy courses".
The second major reason for the amendment is that these courses dovetail more neatly with the other responsibilities of the FEFC than with those of the LEAs. The RNIB points out that many of the students who take life or communication skills courses will also
204
be taking other basic skills courses in literacy and numeracy and/or vocational courses which are the responsibility of funding councils. Therefore it is only logical that both types of course should be provided by the same body in the same building. Many of the courses are already provided in a further education setting precisely because of the need to integrate programmes for students who are following a number of courses. Inevitably, students benefit from the daily contact with other young students that is available in the college, which is not so in an adult education institute, where there is a much less constant community.
I hope that the Minster, having had time to reflect and having heard a little more about the experience of the consumers, will be able to accept the amendment. At any rate, perhaps he will be able to say something positive at this stage. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, the amendment would reposition the responsibility for securing the provision of courses in independent living and in communication skills for students with disabilities. As the Bill is drafted, the duty to secure provision for these courses would rest with local education authorities. The amendment would place the duty on the further education funding councils instead.
As I said during the debate on a similar amendment at Committee stage, the Government fully accept the value of such courses and that there should continue to be a duty to secure their availability. The Bill as drafted will continue that duty. If the courses are not added to Schedule 2, the duty to secure their provision will automatically remain with the LEAs. That is the effect of Clause 11, which provides that the LEAs have a duty to secure the provision of further education wherever the FEFCs do not. The point at issue is thus not whether there should be a duty in relation to these courses but whether that duty should remain with the LEAs or transfer to the funding councils.
I acknowledge that there are arguments both ways, many of which were discussed during the debate at Second Reading. However, the Government's view is that the duty would be better discharged by the local education authorities. These are courses that the LEAs provide now, as has been acknowledged, in collaboration with other agencies, including in particular the social services department, which share the same parent councils. Perhaps that serves as a small counter-argument to what the noble Baroness said about logic and convenience. Administratively and educationally it will make sense for the LEAs to continue to make this provision. Under the new structure LEAs will retain a clear duty to provide those types of courses and funding will continue to be available. The nature of the duty would be no stronger if it were placed on the FEFCs.
The amendment includes a proposal that the further education funding councils should also be responsible for providing courses in communication skills for the families of persons with learning difficulties. That proposal is not consistent with the

205
argument that those courses are the equivalent of the basic skills courses for which the funding councils will have responsibility for those who have no disability. While the courses that we debate are no less important, we see them as different and as more appropriately a local education authority responsibility.
There may be an argument that, as the new structure settles down and the distinctive spheres of LEA and FEFC responsibility evolve, it will make better sense for the FEFCs to take over responsibility for those courses. We are in no position to foresee such an outcome at this stage. However, I acknowledge that the possibility exists. If we reach that position, the Bill provides for these courses to be transferred to the FEFCs' sphere. As your Lordships know, Clause 3(6) allows the list of courses in Schedule 2 to be amended by order, as has been discussed. Courses in independent living and communication skills could be made an FEFC responsibility at a later stage if that became appropriate in the light of experience.
With that explanation of the Government's point of view, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether he can possibly take on board the fact that there are LEAs which are not making provision for those courses and that that may be taken into account when consideration is given to implementing the transitional provisions to which he has referred.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I heard the claims. I am not trying to throw doubt on them. However, they amounted to rather anecdotal evidence. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, states as a fact that the LEAs are not responding. I believe my words were that the LEAs will retain a clear duty to provide. Certainly if that is not happening, in view of what the noble Baroness has said it is a matter that I would wish to consider.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, very much for his intervention, and I cannot pretend that I am not very disappointed by the Minister's reply. It is a relief that it is possible that there may come a time when the FEFCs take over such responsibilities. However, he states that he does not foresee that at the moment.
There is no point in my dividing the House at this hour. I feel strongly about the matter. Will the Minister agree to keep the door open? Can we discuss it a little further? When he kindly met us we discussed a number of issues. I did not have the impression that his officials saw any real objections to the amendment. I do not know whether I am right. Is the Minister willing to discuss the matter further with me because there is concern among disability organisations on this issue?
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say that of course I am always pleased to discuss matters with the noble Baroness. I undertake to do so.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Persons with learning difficulties]:
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 3, line 27, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 35 and insert ("(subject to the provisions of those sections) do so in accordance with subsections (2) to (2B) below.
(2) Each council shall have regard to the requirements of persons having learning difficulties.
(2A) A council shall, if they are satisfied in the case of any person among the population of their area who has a learning difficulty and is over compulsory school age but has not attained the age of twenty-five years, that—

(a) the facilities available in institutions within the further education sector or the higher education sector are not adequate for him, and

(b) it is in his best interests to do so,

secure provision for him at an institution outside those sectors.
(2B) A council shall, if they are satisfied that they cannot secure such provision for a person as they are required to secure under subsection (2A) above unless they also secure the provision of boarding accommodation for him, secure the provision of boarding accommodation for him.
(2C) In exercising their functions under sections 2 and 3 of this Act in the case of any person who has a learning difficulty and is over compulsory school age, a council may—

(a) if they are satisfied that the facilities available in institutions within the further education sector or the higher education sector are not adequate for him, secure provision for him at an institution outside those sectors, and

(b) secure the provision of boarding accommodation for him.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I shall speak to all the government amendments to Clause 4 and to the consequential amendment to Clause 5. The amendments tabled in my noble friend's name would place a new duty on the further education funding councils in relation to students with learning difficulties. They would require the councils to secure provision for such students up to the age of 25 in institutions outside the further or higher education sectors if suitable provision is not available within those sectors and the councils judge that it is in the students' best interests to do so.
The Bill as drafted allows the further education funding councils to continue the existing practice of local education authorities of using placements in independent specialist colleges for students with learning difficulties. However, during the Committee stage anxiety was expressed that there should be a duty over the use of these placements, including arrangements for boarding accommodation where necessary. The amendments are in response to that concern and I hope that they will be acceptable to the noble Lords who support the introduction of a new duty in this area. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 36, Amendment No. 37:
Leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert:
("(2) It shall be the duty of each council to secure for persons having learning difficulties in their area sufficient facilities to which this section applies, that is, education suitable to the requirements of persons having learning difficulties over compulsory school age who have not attained the age of 25 years.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cavendish and Lord Belstead, and the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Howarth, for Amendment No. 36. It is greatly appreciated by all of us and I am sure by those who represent disabled people.
It is encouraging when the Government listen to the arguments put forward in this House. Whenever they do so many thanks are due to them and I am grateful to them on this occasion. A duty has been confirmed which is most important. That was stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, at an earlier stage. Furthermore, the Government have made a remarkable concession; an extension to the age of 25 for people in higher and further education.
The only reason why I have tabled Amendment No. 37 is to adduce clarification. There was previous puzzlement about the amendment's drafting and its exact meaning. When a matter is not clear to the layman it becomes clear when it is pointed out that the draftsman's intention is unassailable and in accordance with the wishes expressed. In this case it appears that the Government's amendment places a clear duty for provisions outside the further education sector. However, it does not appear to place the same duty within the further education sector. That is the sole reason for tabling my amendment. If the Government can persuade me that the provision applies equally within and without I shall be happy; if they cannot do so I shall be unhappy. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I too am extremely grateful to my noble friends for the tremendous step that they have taken to create a new duty which is enforceable by judicial review. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, for having moved Amendment No. 37 because it can serve only to engender constructive debate in the interests of clarification.
I take the view that on the basis of certain case law decisions under the 1981 Act it is implicit that under Clause 4 as amended by Amendments Nos. 36, 38 and 43 the courts would approach the position of statutory duty as follows. First, the council shall have regard to whether the facilities available in institutions within the further or higher education sector are adequate, for the particular person with learning difficulties, to meet his requirements. Secondly, if so, there is a duty to secure such provision. If not, there is the duty to secure provision for him outside those sectors at the expense of the authority, which may well include boarding accommodation.
If that construction of Clause 4 as proposed to be amended by Amendments Nos. 36, 38 and 43 is correct—and I think it is—and if that is common
208
ground, why should the initial duty to secure provision within the sector as such not appear on the face of the Bill? Why should it be treated as a matter of necessary implication? With respect, I am certain the courts would treat it as such. Perhaps the Government will be prepared to take that on board as a drafting problem, having taken on board the need for clarification, and return with an amendment on Third Reading to express on the face of the Bill the mandatory duty which is now implicit so that enforcement by judicial review may not be impeded by legalistic argument on a point of construction contrary to what I understand to be the true intentions of the Government.
The basis upon which the courts would imply that duty is on the basis of the implications of similar duty which arose in the context of Section 7(2) of the 1981 Act. The relevant decisions are Ex Parte H decided in 1983 and Ex Parte Davis in 1989. The Minister has copies of both judgments.
It seems that this is a mere matter of drafting. When I look at Clause 4 as it is proposed to be amended, I find some difficulty in seeing on the face of it that duty because, basically, it is not there. It is merely implicit. It is a crucial question of consequence. If the Government's intention is as I understand it to be, it is a mere matter of drafting and I ask the Government to put it right. It is not a matter which could be resolved by a Division because if there were a Division, I should take the view that the matter is implicit and I should remain in my place.
9.45 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I point out that in discussing Amendments Nos. 36 and 37, if Amendment No. 36 is carried, I cannot call Amendment No. 37A as it would be pre-empted.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the kind words of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, as regards the term, "inside the sector", in Clauses 2 and 3, the duty towards persons with learning difficulties is the same as regards persons without learning difficulties. I hope that that clarifies the matter.
With respect to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I believe that we are trying to achieve the same ends. I shall read carefully what he said: it was quite technical. I may discuss the matter with him before deciding whether it is necessary to bring forward an amendment on Third Reading. I hope that in the light of that, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. I am certain, now that the noble Lord has explained, that the proper construction is what I wished to hear. On the other hand, it is not sensible to include words in an Act of Parliament which even someone so noble and learned in the law as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, finds

209
difficulty in construing, as he himself confessed. However, after putting the provisional wet rag around his head, he came to the right conclusion.
How can the parliamentary draftsmen expect ordinary citizens to come to the right conclusion when someone so eminent in the law as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, finds it difficult, though ultimately he came through? I cannot believe that that is a sensible way of drafting. If it could be put even for the convenience of he who "runs may read" it would be a gain in the understanding of the law. After all, it is an important Bill. Everyone concerned with higher and further education must understand it. I do not see why it should be always necessary to go to lawyers to find out what an Act of Parliament means, especially an Act of this kind.
With the assurance that the noble Lord will think again and confer with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, about any possible amendment at Third Reading, I am grateful for what was said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 36 agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, I cannot call Amendment No. 37A as it has been pre-empted.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 3, line 36, leave out ("subsection (1) above") and insert ("this section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 3, line 47, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall by order specify that the requirements of individual students with learning difficulties shall be assessed. Such individual assessment shall be carried out in a form and by persons prescribed by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at present there is no requirement to continue statements for students in further education. Nevertheless, some local authorities have a policy of continuing assessments in FE which tends to be a simplified form of statement. On the other hand, some authorities have no policy. Problems have occurred with students from colleges which have not maintained any form of assessment experiencing subsequent difficulties where, for example, much of the first year at university is wasted because the university has insufficient information to prepare adequately to meet specific requirements of students with learning difficulties.
On 10th December the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said:
"There is no dispute from this Bench over the importance of assessing students' needs. That applies of course to all students, but particularly to those with disabilities and learning difficulties".—[Official Report, 10/12/91; col. 658.]
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, responded in col. 659,
"The question is how that is secured … If nothing is put into the Bill there will be defaulters in the further education scene. We wish to avoid that".
The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said,
"I feel that many of these matters can be incorporated".
The amendment would simply require that assessments of requirements of students be made. Nothing is argued except that the process used in schools should simply be extended. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, at Committee stage, suggested that further discussion was necessary. He is right to want the details of the process to be subject to further discussion. However, the amendment leaves the matter of detail to the Secretary of State and seeks only to ensure that a process which is currently patchy, with no commonly agreed procedures, be rendered more coherent and certain. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment. It is a sensible proposal. From my personal experience as someone who is dyslexic, I can say that many people who deal with the problems of dyslexics would find it extremely helpful to have some form of continuing assessment out of the school system, if only to tell them exactly what they are supposed to do. It would not need to be terribly complicated. It may be simply a record of the concessions already given and considered to be appropriate in any form of study.
This type of assessment or system would be extremely useful in many cases because it is not very often that people do not want to give assistance, but they do not know what kind of assistance is required. If the information can be given they can go on and do the job. As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady David, in moving the amendment, time can be wasted and problems caused by people not being prepared by some kind of forewarning of the types of concession that may be required. Bearing that in mind, I hope that the Government will be able to look favourably, if not on the amendment, then certainly on the idea.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, so many of the amendments which we have moved and to which the Government have been sympathetic and have responded, have been to continue the provisions for the education of people with special learning difficulties into the system of further and higher education. That has been a continuing theme of our amendments.
The theme of assessment is one of the most important. We all know that in the primary and secondary system of education those with special learning difficulties are subject to statements. They are known in the unpleasant language of officialdom as "statemented children". Though all may not be well with the system of making statements for children with special learning difficulties and though the details may not be right, the principle certainly is and I believe that that is accepted by everyone.
Why then should the provision be discontinued when children leave school and go on to further or higher education? I have never received an answer to that question. Everyone I know who is knowledgeable on this subject is quite sure, like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who has just spoken, that some form of

211
assessment should continue. If there is no form of assessment there may be a very wasteful use of human as well as financial resources.
This amendment is left very open. It is only saying that there should be a statement for these people as there is for those in schools. The matter is left entirely open for the Secretary of State to develop the detail of the system of assessment that is to be adopted. As such, I believe it to be an entirely reasonable amendment. It is very much in line with the other amendments which we have moved to bring further and higher education into line with primary and secondary education for children with special educational needs. I greatly hope that this amendment will be sympathetically received by the Government Front Bench.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment, which would place the Secretary of State under a duty to require the assessment of individual students with learning difficulties and would make the Secretary of State responsible for prescribing how that assessment should be carried out. I have already made it clear that the Government fully recognise the importance of assessing these students' educational needs. I have also made clear that the Government have reservations about whether an explicit statutory requirement for this purpose is necessary or helpful. I have been glad to have the opportunity to consider these issues further since our Committee stage debate. I must now confirm our view that it would not be appropriate to insert an explicit reference to assessment on the face of the Bill. We do, however, intend to ensure by issuing guidance to the funding councils and to local education authorities that assessment is given proper priority in further education.
As I explained during the debate at Committee stage on this issue, the further education funding councils could not discharge properly their statutory duty to have regard to the requirements of persons with learning difficulties without first establishing what those learning difficulties are and what provision is required to meet them. The need for assessment is therefore an implicit part of their duty in relation to students with learning difficulties. This is reflected in the assessment of students' needs which is at present undertaken by colleges.
As the Bill carries forward the existing duty into the new further education structure, colleges will need to continue to assess their students' needs. Existing legislation does not explicitly require assessments, nor does it prescribe how the assessments should be carried out. Nor does the Bill, but I hope I have shown that it would not allow further education to be provided without any regard to the needs of students with disabilities. The Government believe that the Bill already makes adequate provision to ensure that the needs of students with learning difficulties are assessed.
However, the Government take seriously the concerns that have been expressed that the assessment of students with learning difficulties in further education must be safeguarded. We believe that the
212
best way to address this is in the promotion of existing good practice through guidance. We intend therefore to cover the importance of establishing proper arrangements for assessing the needs of students with learning difficulties in the guidance to be issued to the further education funding councils. This is not guidance that they will ignore: it will come from the Secretary of State and set out how he expects the funding councils to use the money he gives them. For good measure, we shall issue parallel guidance to the LEAs about assessment in those areas for which they retain a responsibility; the amendment, of course, would not affect LEAs, so we have something additional there. This approach will allow assessment procedures to be sufficiently flexible to reflect the very diverse needs of the FE student population. I think the need for this flexibility is understood on all sides. By this approach we shall ensure that the need for assessment is taken seriously, without creating unnecessary straitjackets.
I have gone into this in some length and I hope in the light of that undertaking that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply but I confess that I am rather disappointed. I should have very much liked some form of assessment on the face of the Bill. I am supported in this by the Association of Principals of Sixth Form Colleges in the notes about the Bill which it sent to me. The association states:
"The statement on special needs provision contained within Clause 4 does not, to us, seem adequate. We would seek a funding for special need students which is based upon a clear process of diagnosis and assessment of real need".
It seems a bit odd that the Department of Employment is trying to develop a system of individual action plans for each trainee with the youth training and employment training programmes. The process of assessing special needs will no doubt be rather broader and more complex but it should perhaps follow a similar process with the aim of enabling students with disabilities to lead active, independent lives in full employment.
It seems to me that if the Department of Employment is doing that the Department of Education and Science might perhaps try to do something like that as well. Of course I am glad to hear that there is going to be guidance. I certainly shall not press this amendment tonight but I should like to consult, take advice and consider whether we are happy enough with the guidance—which I doubt—and reserve the right to come back at Third Reading if we are not entirely satisfied. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Administration of funds by councils]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 4, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) For the purposes of section 4(1) of this Act, a council may give financial support to any person or body in respect of provision of support services for persons having learning difficulties.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 61.
The purpose of these amendments is to allow further education funding councils and the higher education funding councils to establish and maintain peripatetic support teams for students with learning difficulties.
At present support is available to students with disabilities and learning difficulties in a number of different ways. However, a significant proportion of students are supported by peripatetic support teams. These are teams of professionals with a range of skills who offer assistance to a student in class and after class, who oversee the loan and maintenance of disability related equipment and who can give advice and training to college teachers and other staff. These teams are often LEA rather than college based and thus will not automatically transfer to the new funding councils. It is important that these teams continue to exist and indeed that they should be established in areas where they do not presently operate, so that all students with learning difficulties can benefit.
After the passing of the Bill, professionals working with the post-16 age group will need to be working with, and be managed by, those involved in further education. They will need to have an understanding of the different needs of students in comparison with school pupils and be free to develop a flexible service that is truly student rather than curriculum centred. They will need to be immediately available to staff and students when problems arise.
Many of the post-16 support teams are actively supporting students in higher education. For teams to have continued and consistent funding in the future, which allows them to maintain adequate staffing and plan effectively, financial support should come from both funding councils. I hope that the Minister can give a sympathetic response to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, these amendments would insert in the funding powers of the further education and higher education funding councils an explicit reference to support services for students with learning difficulties. The Government appreciate the value of these support services and we pay tribute, as the noble Baroness has, to the work that they do. However, the Bill already provides for their funding to be continued, and the amendments therefore are not necessary.
For further education, the power that allows the support services to be financed by the funding councils is in Clause 5(5) (b). For higher education, the power is in Clause 61(2) (d). The provisions cover all kinds of support and ancillary services. But they are deliberately not listed, so as not to impose any artificial constraints. There is no need to add a specific reference to support services for students with disabilities. The institutions too—in other words, the colleges—will be able to organise and fund support services of this kind under their existing powers in the case of the higher education institutions and under Clause 19 in the case of the FE colleges in the new sector. In Clause 19, students with learning difficulties are specifically mentioned. The powers in the Bill are adequate to cover the support services.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that possibly satisfactory reply. I shall need to check all the references that he kindly gave. However, on the face of it, his reply sounded fairly encouraging. I shall read it to see whether I am entirely satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 4, line 20, at end insert:
("(3A) In exercising their functions under Section 3 of this Act a council may give financial support for the provision of facilities for further education to a local education authority or to an educational institution maintained or assisted by a local education authority.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have pleasure in speaking at the same time to Amendment No. 47 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. This is the first time that I have spoken in the House on education. I do so now with great trepidation, simply as one who attends an evening class and has done so for a few years.
The amendment is intended to support adult education provision wherever it may be made and to strengthen the role of the funding councils in this area. The councils are to acquire responsibility for the types of further education courses listed in Schedule 2. That includes much valuable and valued work carried out in a great variety of adult education centres across the country.
Without the amendment the funding councils will be able to have only indirect contact with such centres which will be left to seek funding for their vocational, examination or basic education courses via a local college which will also be competing with them for funds and students. I am afraid that I shall have to go into a trite situation. It is a little like saying that the corner grocer must get permission from the nearest superstore to offer certain lines of stock.
In West Sussex, where I live, there are 16 community schools which offer vocational as well as non-vocational courses for adults. I use the term "vocational" as convenient shorthand for those courses in Schedule 2. The schools are in future to answer to two masters: the local education authority for non-vocational work and the further education college for the vocational work. Those are tongue-twisters. However, it would be a sad and unnecessary loss if the provision were in any way to be diminished as a result.
The local centres are closely identified with their local communities who understand them better than an outsider would. They are specialists in providing part-time education which adults can pursue in their spare time. This includes vocational courses, courses for those who wish to return to work, courses for career development or, importantly, for those who need to change career. They pride themselves on meeting the needs of their locality, and people may be as much as 15 miles away from their nearest college. The local centre must have the independence and

215
flexibility to identify and respond to such needs. That will not be achieved by making it a second-class satellite of a college.
Elsewhere there will be other patterns of provision outside the colleges: adult education centres, area networks and so on. The same arguments apply to them. The amendment attempts to allow for this variety and to recognise different local circumstances.
It would enable a community school, an adult centre or an LEA acting for a network of providers to deal directly with the funding council. It would thus not prevent two or more providers making a joint bid. It is not restricted to centres owned by the local education authority. Where an LEA supports non-vocational adult work at a voluntary school, a grant-maintained school or even an independent centre, those institutions could bid for funding council support for their parallel vocational work under the amendment. At the same time, the requirement for there being at least assistance from the local education authority prevents this from being an open door for countless new providers to seek to enter the market with bids for support.
The amendment is permissive. It does not require the councils to accept every bid. It is subject to their duty to secure adequate provision in such places as meet the reasonable need for this education, to make the most effective use of resources and to avoid disproportionate expenditure as set out in Clause 3. It does not even prevent bids being made via colleges as provided for in Clause 6(5) where this is the preferred local approach.
It simply acknowledges the role of the providers outside colleges and allows them a reasonable crack of the whip when bidding for support. They should not be sacrificed to some narrow view of administrative convenience simply because they are felt to be too numerous or the volume of their vocational work too small. If the centres are left to bid via colleges, Clause 6(5) makes the college judge and jury in its own cause should those bids compete with provision proposed by the college. Surely that cannot be right.
In some cases, the adult centres may serve a different geographic area from any particular college or provide courses of a type not generally covered by the college. What then is the sense of asking a college to judge submissions not within its own competence? If we are told that the colleges will normally simply pass on bids, only stopping or amending them in extreme circumstances, one has to ask what on earth is the point of building the extra link of complication and delay into the chain? If we are told that the safeguard against abuse is the power of the Secretary of State to intervene under Section 68 of the 1944 Act, should we not create a system which minimises the possible need for such a last resort which is anyhow limited in its scope?
The council will, after all, have its regional committees and staff to help resolve priorities across a range of bidders. That offers a better prospect of impartial consideration from the outset of funding bids from adult education providers.
Above all, the self-respect, the liveliness and the responsiveness of adult centres will be better preserved
216
and enhanced if they are allowed a measure of independence in their dealings. The sector as a whole should be strengthened to encourage competition, which the Government have supported for a number of years, between adult centres and colleges rather than subordinating one to the other. The amendment aims to foster a healthy adult education centre, recognising the importance of educational opportunities to the life and economy of this country. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, which is grouped with my Amendment No. 47. There is not a great deal for me to add as the noble Lord has covered most of the main arguments in favour of what we are discussing. We are essentially discussing the equal treatment of equals when it comes to finance rather than the unequal treatment of equals. In other words, it is our old friend the level playing field.
The noble Lord has placed his finger on the main point. Looking at my amendment, the local authorities have a useful role to play as a channel which might help to assure the small corner shop, as it were, that its future is not being decided by the supermarket. That was the noble Lord's most telling analogy. I hope that the Minister will take some of these matters on board and give us an encouraging answer.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the amendments will give powers to the funding councils to fund LEAs directly for Schedule 2 education. Amendment No. 42 will also enable the councils to fund institutions maintained or assisted by LEAs. It was about that that my noble friend Lord Teviot was mainly speaking. The Government are well aware that provision is made by LEAs and their institutions which falls to be the duty of the funding councils. The amendment moved by my noble friend is not necessary because the councils already have power to fund provision made outside their own sector through the agency of the colleges within their sector.
I ask noble Lords to consider what the Bill already provides under Clause 6(5). That provision has been introduced expressly to meet the concerns which my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, seek to meet through the amendments. Clause 6(5) allows institutions outside the FE sector to make applications through institutions within that new sector for support from the funding councils for provision which falls within Schedule 2.
The FE college which is applied to must forward the application to the funding council where the provision in question would otherwise be inadequate in the area. If the college decides not to forward the application, that decision will be subject to review by the Secretary of State on the grounds of unreasonableness or failure to perform a duty. I understood when my noble friend said that that would make the FE college which was handling the application judge and jury in its own cause, but with respect to him that is not the case.

217
First, it is not open, as the Bill is drafted, for the FE college to impose a view as to whether there is adequacy or inadequacy for the course being applied for. The FE college which is the channel has to take an objective view, not its own view. If it does not take an objective view, and can be found not to have taken an objective view, as I have said, the Secretary of State could come down like a ton of bricks under the provisions of the Education Act 1944 on the grounds that the FE college, acting as a channel, had been unreasonable or had failed to perform its duty. An application for support might come from an adult college or centre, a school or a voluntary body. It is the specific purpose of Clause 6(5) that all such institutions or bodies which make Schedule 2 provision should have the opportunity to get it considered for funding by the funding councils.
My noble friend made a telling point when he said that an adult education institution or centre, of the kind of which he has personal knowledge, provides an important local focus and facility and exerts an important influence. Therefore it is important that people should be able to get to the institution. There is no question of such an important provision which is made outside the council's sector being disregarded.
I remind noble Lords that one of the grounds on which the provision of adequate facilities for further education must be based is that councils must discharge their duty so as to secure that facilities are provided at such places that will meet reasonable needs. That means that in the discharge by the funding councils of their duties, where the FE colleges act as a channel of their responsibilities, they will have to take into account the continuing accessibility to local communities of an adult education centre or institute. The funding councils would have to consider carefully whether their duty was fulfilled through FE colleges' proposals.
In addition, we should not forget the regional advisory councils which will stand ready to advise the funding council for England on important local issues. They will want to ensure that issues which matter to local people are properly considered. Their task will be to reflect concerns to the funding council. That advice will be important to the council in making decisions on the provision it will fund and in deciding upon the conditions to be attached to the locations where provision will be made. There is no question, therefore, of the regional advisory councils giving financial support to anyone. That will be done by the funding councils.
As regards giving funding council support to local education authorities, we return to an issue where it again appears that the Government are agin local education authorities. Here a simple point must be made. Any direct funding of local education authorities would involve a division of the responsibility for the provision of Schedule 2 education within a particular area. I do not believe that is desirable. At the moment it is envisaged that a bid will be made from a college or an adult education institute, through a college which is within the new further education sector, to the funding council. That will mean that the
218
whole duty of the funding council is secured directly through the funding council's own sector. I know that administrative tidiness is never a good argument to use. However, from an administrative point of view that is a sensible way of proceeding. It is for that reason that the amendment, which seeks to bring in the local education authority as a candidate for direct funding from the funding council, is not desirable.
I have spoken for too long, but I hope I have attempted to reply to the points made by my noble friend Lord Teviot. I know he appreciates and has benefited from provision made by an adult education centre which he has attended. He and I have talked informally about that. The provisions made under Clause 6(5) constitute the right way for a centre or institute to proceed in obtaining direct funding from the funding council.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I was interested to hear my noble friend's reply. He and I have been involved in many legislative matters over the years. I am not sure whether I shall withdraw the amendment, but before I decide what to do with it I have an important point to make. No one can serve two masters, let alone three. When local adult education authorities are dealing with vocational courses, will there be a framework in the Bill whereby the funding councils will be able to fund them without having to refer to anyone else? I have tried to listen carefully to my noble friend, but I may have switched off for a moment. Can adult education centres at present receive direct guidance from the funding councils, as proposed in my amendment?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I regret to say that the answer to that question is, no. The funding arrangements will work in this way. If an adult education institute or centre is providing courses which fall outside Schedule 2, which is the fulcrum point in this case, the funding for those courses will continue to come from the local education authority. However, if the centre or institute is running some courses which fall within Schedule 2 provision the centre or institute can make a bid through a further education college which is within the new further education sector for funding from the funding council. Under Clause 6(5) it needs to be done in that way.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, it looks as though adult education will become a second class citizen. The noble Lord talked about the fulcrum. When I was at school fulcrum, in Latin, meant "shining". Unless the noble Lord, Lord Peston, wishes to intervene at this point I feel that I must divide the House.
10.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 42) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 44.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Combermere, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

David, B.

[Teller.]

219

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Rochester, L.

Lockwood, B.

Russell, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Seear, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Shepherd, L.

Northbourne, L.

Teviot, L. [Teller.]

Parry, L.

Tordoff, L.

Peston, L.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Balfour, E.

Carnock, L.

Barber, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Belstead, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Denham, L.

Butterworth, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

220

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Saint Levan, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Henley, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Hooper, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Howe, E. [Teller.]

Stockton, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Morris, L.

Trumpington, B.

Norfolk, D.

Ullswater, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Vivian, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Waddington, L.

Reay, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.33 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness Lord Cavendish of Furness moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 4, line 21, leave out ("4(2)") and insert ("4(2A) to (2C)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 43 is consequential on Amendment No. 36, which has already been spoken to. On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) A council may give financial support to networks of providers of further education to adults operating credit accumulation and transfer arrangements related to the types of education set out in Schedule 2 to this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to facilitate the progression of adults into the kind of courses—vocational, academic and other—set out in Schedule 2 with regard to support for the work of networks of providers of further education. It would make specific the power of the further education funding council to fund the organisations which manage national credit accumulation and transfer arrangements for courses currently outside the remit of either the National Council for Vocational Qualifications or the higher education credit accumulation and transfer system administered by the CNAA.
The majority of Open College network-recognised courses fall within Schedule 2, paragraphs (c) to (h). For example, 82 per cent. of the work of the Merseyside Open College Federation is of that kind. The amendment that I now move is designed to meet some of the objections which were made to the amendment that I moved in Committee. There was, I believe, a certain amount of misunderstanding. The amendment does not attempt to extend Schedule 2 or to divert FEFC money to LEAs. It seeks to ensure the continued development of a rigorous accreditation process for those aspects of Schedule 2 work not covered by more traditional national awarding and examining bodies.
The National Open College Network (NOCN) is a federation of regional Open College networks created to develop and maintain a national credit transfer framework for all Open College networks. To be eligible for membership of NOCN an Open College network must operate within the NOCN national credit transfer framework and be subject to its processes of quality assurance.
Open College networks are federations of local education and training providers drawn from further, higher, adult and community education services. They also include certain voluntary bodies and employers. They exist to accredit learning in a wide variety of locally designed education and training programmes, ascribing credit values and levels to programmes in order to enable individual learners to accumulate credits for the purposes of entry to higher level qualifications or employment. I believe that they serve a very useful purpose, and it would be pleasing if that could be recognised by the appearance of this amendment in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I am in great sympathy with the noble Baroness when she talks of the importance of the Open College networks and the work that they do. Their particular value is that they allow people to enter at any level and begin to build up credits which can eventually lead to access to higher education. However, the proposal in the amendment assumes a somewhat tidier world than the one that in fact exists. In the first place, there are a variety of people engaged on the courses. Some are studying in the conscious hope of building up credits for entry to higher education; others are simply taking the courses for leisure purposes. The value of the courses lies in just that dual use. Often, people take a course for leisure and enjoyment and afterwards decide that they would like to put it forward for access credit through the Open College network.
Therefore, it is not possible to point to any individual course in order to fund it and say that it is a unit or a module which will build up to credit. Often, in fact, the higher education institution, with imaginative and flexible arrangements, is able to give credit and assess prior learning in a way which had not been envisaged either by the student or by the provider at the time that the course was followed.
For all those reasons I believe that it is right to leave the funding and provision of these courses to local education authorities. The authorities have done extraordinarily well in the provision of access courses and the flexible arrangements which allow for access. They have provided for local need and have enabled their residents to build up credit. I believe that to attempt to identify specific courses and transfer them out of local authority funding into the funding councils would inhibit rather than enhance that very important objective. For that reason I do not support the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask whether she has noticed that the amendment only suggests that the funding council may give financial support to those networks of providers. Was she concentrating her remarks on that point?
Baroness Perry of Southwark: If I may speak a second time, my Lords, yes, indeed. That is the question that I answered. I believe that to try to identify particular networks and forms of
support would inhibit the great variety of provision made for a wide variety of purposes.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I join with both noble Baronesses in expressing appreciation for the useful work done at local level in mapping out accredited progression routes for adults by those networks. There is every reason to expect the progression of adults from informal study to more formal study to continue, whether through the Open College networks or otherwise. Perhaps I may add that credit accumulation transfer is an increasingly important development.
The Open College networks are funded from a number of different sources at present although, as my noble friend Lady Perry pointed out, the lion's share

223
of the funding comes from the local authorities. The provisions of the Bill would not prevent the Open College networks from continuing to be funded for the work that they do. Indeed, in respect of education falling within Schedule 2 to the Bill, the funding councils will have powers to fund colleges in the FE sector. The relevant power is in Clause 5(1).
Through subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 6, the funding councils are also able, through the FE colleges, to provide funding for Schedule 2 courses and for activities relating to such courses made by adult colleges and centres or by voluntary bodies. It is that power on which we voted in the last Division.
My noble friend Lady Perry spoke from her experience of the difficulties of being able to identify the specific courses when we refer to the networks. However, in practice much of the work of the Open College networks will fall within the remit of Schedule 2, covering, for example, access to higher education courses and "return to learn" courses. Some of the accredited courses of the networks will not fall within Schedule 2. While they can assist progression to courses which fall within Schedule 2, they will be informal courses which fall to the duty of the LEAs, which have clear powers to fund such provision under Clause 11.
In summary, the whole of the Schedule 2 work of the Open College networks can, if the Open College networks wished to make a bid, be supported under Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill, whether it is provided by colleges within the new sector or by adult colleges maintained by LEAs. Other provision which assists progression and falls outside Schedule 2 can continue to be funded by the local education authorities, in this case under Clause 11.
I hope therefore that the noble Baroness, Lady David, will feel that these assurances cover the point that her amendment raises. The work of the Open College networks is valuable and can continue to be funded under existing powers in the Bill. But in the cases where it is possible to make a bid through Clause 6(5)—it is a familiar point now—then such a bid can be made.
Baroness David: My Lords, I have met some rather powerful opposition. However, I thank the noble Baroness for speaking to the amendment and the Minister for his reply.
Yet again, I shall have to study the detail of the Minister's speech and take advice. What has been said seems fairly convincing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, reserving the possible right to return on the issue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) In determining the giving of financial support under this section, a council shall have regard to:

(a) the need to secure adequate facilities for the further education of the population of rural areas,

(b) the needs of small specialist colleges, and

(c) the differential costs of residential provision.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we move to a different issue: that of agricultural colleges. The agricultural colleges are anxious that the new further education funding councils to be set up by the Bill should recognise and make appropriate provision for the fact that by its nature agricultural education is more expensive to deliver than most other forms of further education.
Agricultural colleges tend to be small and specialised, with higher cost per full-time student than other FE colleges. The higher cost derives in part from the low student to staff ratios necessitated by the small groups approach appropriate to teaching practical skills—for example, animal husbandry, machinery maintenance and so on—which is needed to meet health and safety requirements.
There is also a greater requirement for residential accommodation. Because agricultural colleges serve dispersed rural hinterlands, daily commuting is not always possible for full-time students. The practical requirements of some courses—for instance, early morning milking—dictate that students reside on site. There is concern that in future students might be expected to contribute not only their boarding fees but also towards the residual boarding costs of colleges; that is, such fixed costs as catering, overheads and so on, which might well be beyond their grants.
For students on day-release courses, transport often has to be provided as public transport services in rural areas are inadequate. The practical facilities of the colleges are relatively high cost ones as, for example, they need to maintain living material, animals, plants and so on throughout the year in what are usually extensive buildings and grounds.
Although the number of purely agricultural students at the colleges has declined in recent years the colleges are adjusting to meet new demands for rural, land-based courses on such matters a countryside conservation, environment management, horticulture, equine pursuits and so on. The colleges have a key function as centres for training and retraining at a time of significant change and restructuring in agriculture and the rural economy.
The colleges are, therefore, expected to continue to have an important role to play in further education in rural areas, although on a wider base than hitherto. In order to fulfil that role they must be be allocated adequate funding by the new councils. Although regional advisory committees for the English council are provided for in paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, it seems likely that any rural voice on these committees will be outvoted by urban interests.
The amendment is probing and is intended to encourage the Minister to give assurances that the special requirements of the agricultural colleges are recognised by the Government, which will ensure that the funding councils take full account of the special factors that make their role and the service they provide rather different from those of other FE institutions. As a former MAFF Minister, one hopes that the noble Lord will listen sympathetically to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the amendment. There is anxiety in

225
rural circles and among farmers about the funding of agricultural colleges. As the noble Baroness said, it is not a cheap form of education. It remains important to the rural economy and environment, in particular at this moment of impending change and diversification.
I am sure that I need not elaborate in view of what has been said. I know that my noble friend the Minister will understand these matters. I trust that further education funding councils will understand the needs of these colleges. They are vital to the future of rural areas and I hope that my noble friend will give assurances about them.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too wish to say a few words in support of the amendment. First, I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady David, about rural transport. When I was a teenager I lived in a remote rural area. It was an area which the English thought was Cornwall and the Cornish thought was England. After publication of the Beeching Report we were told that the remote rural areas could rely on busses. For once in a blue moon the Sunday Times sent a correspondent to our area. He asked, "When is the next bus?" and was told, "Next Tuesday". That is the kind of situation in which transport costs become rather severe.
I also support what the noble Baroness said about high unit costs. The funding council regime is one which can accommodate high unit costs. I heard and appreciated what the Minister said about disproportionate cost earlier today. However, although the regime can do so, it does not find it easy. Anyone with high unit costs facing a funding council regime will feel anxiety, and that anxiety is likely to be well founded.
Also, at present the agricultural community has been facing a good deal of hardship. If we are to reach a conclusion to the Gatt Round—and the arguments in favour of doing so are extremely strong—it is possible that that could imply for farmers even further hardship. It is not right in that situation to inflict unnecessary hardships on the rural economy and I agree that we are dealing with the rural economy as well as agriculture. If hardship in this sort of area can be avoided it should be.
Finally, I ask the Minister not merely to repeat the previous answer that there is nothing to stop the funding councils funding what is under discussion. He must have noticed that that answer is not altogether reassuring to those on these Benches because it is taken as axiomatic on this side of the House—and I suspect in some other quarters as well—that the amount of money provided will not be sufficient to meet the object for which it is designed. It never is. I cannot think of any occasion under this Government when it ever has been. Therefore, those whom it is important to preserve and who are likely to face particular hardship are bound to ask for particular protection. It would be worth giving that protection to them.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I believe that I can give some assurances about this important matter—the agricultural colleges—and I am grateful to the noble
226
Baroness, Lady David, for moving the amendment and to my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for taking part in this short exchange of views.
It will be for the councils to judge how best to fulfil the duty placed upon them, for example, in ensuring that adequate facilities are available in rural areas. It will also be for the councils to determine how to make the most effective use of their resources. However, in reaching those judgments they will be able to take account of the needs of each area with advice from the regional committees and they will also be able to take account of the type of institution making the provision —in this case, the discussion has centred around agricultural colleges although the amendment could affect other specific kinds of institutions—the nature of the study provided by the institution and whether there are any alternatives available.
I refer your Lordships to the assurance given in the White Paper which preceded the introduction of this Bill that the further education funding councils would be able to apply differential weighting in order to take account of the higher costs of, for example, workshop-based or other specialist provision.
I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for reminding the House about our earlier discussions on disproportionate expenditure. It is worth repeating on this amendment that expenditure is not disproportionate if the money is being spent in order to meet the purpose for which it is to be spent. In other words, if the money needed to run an agricultural college is at such a level that it is meeting the needs of the college and the students attending it, then there will be no question of that being disproportionate expenditure.
Finally, the Government well understand that some kinds of provision are more expensive than others. We are aware of anxieties expressed by different groups that they may be disadvantaged by funding arrangements which take no account of inherent differences. One of the main reasons for the reform is to try to get the best from the variety of different further education institutions which will go into the new further education sector. We do not wish to obliterate differences but to enhance them. I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness will believe it is right to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the two noble Lords who gave me support on the amendment and the Minister for his reply, which has certainly given some reassurance. As I have said so often, I shall need to return to those who asked me to table the amendment to see whether they wish me to come back and take up any of the points made by the Minister. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 48 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Administration of funds: supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 48A not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 5, line 26, leave out ("particular") and insert ("religion or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in discussion in Committee on Clause 62 the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford helpfully pointed out that the present definition in the Bill of institutions of a denominational character would exclude institutions administered by more than one denomination. I undertook to bring forward government amendments to remedy that defect. I believe I am right in saying that I have had a shot at it and the right reverend Prelate has also tabled amendments. In moving Amendment No. 49 I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 51, 140 and 142. The right reverend Prelate has tabled amendments starting with Amendment No. 50.
With regard to the government amendments, with the removal of the word "particular" the general principle set out in the Interpretation Act that singular includes plural applies. The opportunity has also been taken to extend the definition to cover institutions in which the religious connection is not with any specific denomination.
It was never the Government's intention to exclude those institutions from the definitions. We were brought to address the matter by the right reverend Prelate and I am most grateful to him. The amendments will repair the defects in both parts of the Bill. As I say, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for pointing out the omission.
Before the right reverend Prelate speaks on the matter, perhaps I may say that the assurance I should like to give is that I am advised that the amendments have precisely the effect of extending the definition of institutions of a denominational character in Clause 62 to cover institutions connected with more than one denomination. That was something which the right reverend Prelate said was certainly his intention to correct. My advice is that the amendments actually achieve that. I hope that the amendments hit the target which the right reverend Prelate also wishes to hit. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister places me in something of a difficulty in so far as I am a little slow in catching up with that splendid phrase about the singular including the plural. That was not language I was used to when I was educated in English grammar. I take it, therefore, that it is a legal definition.
If the Minister is assuring me, as I believe I heard him say, that when the Bill says "religion or denomination" that actually means "denominations", the point is achieved. If that is the case then I support the amendment and shall not move my own. I hope my understanding is correct.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I can give the right reverend Prelate the assurance he is asking for regarding the interpretation and the effect of my amendment. The words "religion or … denomination" can mean "religions or denominations". That is exactly the case. The singular means the plural in statutory language.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 5, line 31, leave out ("particular") and insert ("religion or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
11 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 5, line 31, at end insert ("or
(c) all or most of the property held for the purposes of the institution is held under trusts which provide that such property is to be used either for or in connection with the provision of education in accordance with the tenets of a particular religious denomination or denominations or for or in connection with the operation of an institution which is conducted in accordance with the tenets of a particular denomination or denominations.").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I moved this amendment at Committee stage, not in connection with Clause 6, but with Clause 62. On reflection, we recognised that this amendment should apply to the institutions in this part of the Bill as well as to the higher education institutions. The Minister will remember that my concern is that some of these denominational institutions are operating under trust deeds which are confined not just to what happens to the property if the institution is closed but are drawn up in order to control the management and running of the institution as an operation.
Therefore, I believe that some further amendment may be necessary. My advisers have asked that this amendment should be moved in order that the issue can be properly attended to. If the Minister can assure me that for some reason there is some other legal interpretation to do with the singular and the plural, I shall be happy. However, I need to move the amendment in order to elicit a response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am very glad that the right reverend Prelate has moved this amendment because he is right that this is unfinished business. I shall not go over the problem because he has outlined it succinctly. I admit that finding a solution to the problem has proved to be more complex than we had expected. The Department of Education and Science has examined a number of trust deeds for institutions generally recognised to be denominational which are funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. It appears that there are some that would not pass the tests specified by Clause 62.
However, some of these institutions would also fail the third test proposed by the right reverend Prelate's amendment. In other words, the addition of this amendment would not make the definition sufficiently comprehensive for the purposes of Clause 62 nor would it necessarily do so in relation to Clause 6. Therefore, the best way forward would seem to be for the department, in consultation with the right reverend Prelate's advisers, to seek an amendment to these clauses which will provide for a suitably comprehensive definition of institutions of a denominational character. With that reassurance, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel that it is right that

229
we ask those who advise us to continue at the drawing board in the hope that we shall be able to return, probably jointly, with an agreed amendment which I hope, but cannot absolutely undertake, to have ready at the next stage of the Bill. At any rate, there is a determination to make sure that we get an amendment which will be suitable to the right reverend Prelate and the Government before the Bill is finally passed into law.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister sits down, perhaps I may just observe that it is surely we who look to the right reverend Prelate for guidance on the indivisibility of the plurality and the multiplicity of the unity.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, on this occasion I shall not attempt to respond to the noble Lord's interesting theological point, but shall stick to the amendment. I am immensely grateful to the Minister for his reassurance. I believe that we are agreed what it is that we wish jointly to achieve. I shall be happy to leave the matter on the basis which he has suggested—that is to say, that our respective advisers should try to deal with this technical matter. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 5, line 44, after ("are") insert ("in the view of the sponsoring body, the external institution or the LEA").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the question of who is to decide about adequacy. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that more than one part of a system is able to influence the definition of the adequacy of provision for the population of any area and that adequacy is expressed in more than volume terms. Adult education will continue to be provided through a variety of means, including voluntary bodies, but with the new FEFC sector playing a major role. This amendment is intended to probe government thinking and to establish whether it is really their view that in future adequacy will be determined by the local FE college alone.
It is hard to see any long-term future for adult education centres, colleges or voluntary bodies in providing Schedule 2 work, if that is the case. I beg to move.
Viscount Combermere: My Lords, I fully support this amendment. As the Bill stands, in the absence of direct billing, nearly all adult education centres will have to route their application for funds via their neighbouring FE college. If funding is denied or delayed, for whatever reason, that could have a serious effect in terms of planning a programme of studies.
I have personal experience in planning a relatively large programme of around 65 adult courses at university level and I am currently engaged in such a task at the moment. Planning, in my experience, starts about nine months before the courses actually start. Part-time staff need to be engaged; timetables need to be worked out and agreed and publicity material
230
needs to be available well in advance of the courses starting. This latter aspect is vital, as experienced part-time staff do not grow on trees and have to be contacted well in advance if one is to get the right lecturer and ensure proper standards.
Further, experience in this field has at least taught one that inadequate or late publicity material seriously damages the prospects of a programme or a single course. The last thing that adult education needs is unnecessary and possibly damaging uncertainty.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may say so, I do not think that we can treat adequacy as if it appears for the first time in the Bill under Clause 6(5). We are not free to decide how we should define it. In considering what is meant by the word we need to look back at Clause 3 and the duty on the funding councils to secure the provision of adequate facilities for further education and discharging that duty a council must,
"secure that facilities are provided at such places, are of such character and are so equipped as to meet reasonable need"
In determining what is adequate provision under Clause 6(5) the further education sector college must have regard to this duty which is laid upon the council under Clause 3.
The amendment of the noble Baroness adds to the meaning of what is adequate in a way which, with respect, I do not think is appropriate. It would introduce quality as a defining factor of adequate provision. Quality is, of course, a very important matter and we are dealing with it in Clause 9 and in the new clause which comes after Clause 52. But Clause 6(5) is not the right place to include quality considerations.
To define inadequate provision in terms of quality will have quite a strange effect. It might mean that an FE college would be asked to forward to the funding council an application for funding of new courses on the grounds that identical existing courses were of poor quality. That is unlikely to be a very good basis for decisions on funding. The way forward would surely be to tackle the poor quality provision first and give it a chance to improve.
In summary, we do have difficulty with these amendments. We believe that further education colleges should have the formal role in determining adequacy, in which process it would need to confer with colleges making applications to it and the local education authority as necessary. Setting up a formal disputes procedure is not the way forward and might well tend to make any disagreement more bitter and protracted. Defining inadequate provision, as Amendment No. 55 seeks to do, goes further than would be right for the reasons that I have recently given.
I remind your Lordships of a point which I have sought previously to make. The further education college which has to decide on forwarding the bid to the funding council may not, under Clause 6(5), take a subjective view. It must take an objective view. There is nothing said in Clause 6(5) about the view which a further education college can take on a bid. It can only look objectively to see whether or not the provisions of Clause 6(5) are fulfilled.

231
Standing behind that all the time will be the knowledge that if the further education college which is being used as a channel for the bid takes a view which can be said to be unreasonable, or not fulfilling a duty, then the Secretary of State can come down on that college like a ton of bricks and find that it has acted outside its powers. I apologise for disagreeing with the noble Baroness, but I do not believe that the amendment is the way to go about this. The existing provisions in the Bill, looking back to Clause 3, are a very good and firm guide as to what is or is not adequate.
Baroness David: My Lords, I forgot to say that in moving Amendment No. 54 I was speaking at the same time to Amendment No. 55. However, it was clear from the Minister's response that he realised that. I thank the noble Viscount for his support. My response will be same as it has been so many times. I shall have to read carefully what the Minister has said. I shall consider, consult and then decide whether it is worth coming back again. In this case I think that it is probably not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 56 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 5, line 48, at end insert:
("( ) In any instances where the adequacy of the provision for that population in that year is disputed, the matter shall be referred to the relevant Council or, in England, the Regional Advisory Committee, for resolution,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to set up an appeals mechanism for external bids for FEFC funding via a sponsoring body. There is no appeals mechanism. I know from what the Minister said on the previous amendment that one can go to the Secretary of State, but that is a rather heavy handed way of going about it.
Under the provisions of the Bill as it stands nearly all adult education colleges services institutions will need to route their applications to FEFCs for Schedule 2 funding through a local further education college. They will not be eligible for incorporation or designation. Relationships in some localities between adult and FE services have not always been good and the Bill radically alters the distribution of influence between the two. In any event, other people's programmes and funding needs are unlikely to be a sponsoring college's top priority.
External institutions will need to know when they can expect to have the information on which to design and publish promotional material, engage part-time staff and timetable staff and premises. The route through FE college sponsorship may apply to nearly all adult education services or, as we propose, only to the smaller. In either case it will be essential to the maintenance of proper local community-based services that there is no unnecessary delay in determining the level of funds to be made available and that there should be an appeals mechanism. Without these provisions, damaging instability will be
232
introduced into the planning mechanisms of adult centres and services and the adequacy of provision for a locality could be determined without appeal by a body which had shown no previous interest and demonstrated no expertise in the education of adults.
The amendment seeks to set up some kind of appeals mechanism. Such a mechanism is necessary in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to sympathise with the proposal. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the idea of an appeals mechanism looks like natural justice, but there are two reasons why the idea is not perhaps well conceived. First, we would be almost certainly bringing into play a body that would have no accountability to the funding councils for the implementation of the duty to provide further education for those who need it and indeed for the resources required for the purpose. That means that the buck ought to stop with the funding council. The second point is that the buck does not stop with the funding council. I apologise for repeating this point but it has to be repeated in this case. If it can be shown that the middle man—the further education college through which the bid is routed—has acted in an unreasonable way, then the Secretary of State can come down like a ton of bricks on that college and call the college to account for either being unreasonable or for not fulfilling its duty.
Before I sit down perhaps I can be a little more constructive than that. We should not forget that the regional committees will give advice to the council for England on any issue of local concern. The councils, and in England the regional committees, will of course be aware of any dispute. It will be open to the participants to bring it to their notice. The advice of the committee would be important for the council in making its decisions on funding. Moreover, the determination by an FE college of the adequacy of Schedule 2 provision in its locality must he based on good knowledge and experience. That means that it will need to confer with local adults colleges making applications to it and, as necessary, the LEA. We would certainly expect it to do so.
With that assurance I hope that the disagreement I have expressed with the idea of an appeals machinery will become a little more acceptable.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the regional advisory committee as being there to help, but according to the amendment the appeal could go,
"to the relevant Council or, in England, the Regional Advisory Committee, for resolution".
I have therefore taken that point. As I said, it seems to me that for it to have to go to the Secretary of State is a hard way to proceed. There should be simpler ways than going to the boss. Yet again, I should like to read and consider the answer and decide whether it is satisfactory. Tonight, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Supplementary functions]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 57A:
Page 6, line 41, leave out ("and") and insert:

233
("(aa) shall publish an annual report on the funding and quality of further education, the educational standards in further education, and the management of resources in the further education sector, and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an annual report amendment to which the House is quite accustomed. It is a familiar type of animal. The case for arguing it here is that we have a very new system —the creation of what I imagine will be a single system out of a highly disparate collection of units. We have many questions in our own minds about how it will work. I recall particularly the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford on Amendment No. 4 dealing with sixth form colleges. A great many questions were raised to which I should very much like to know the answers.
It seems to me that it could be to the benefit of the House to have an annual report laid in front of us and to hear something of the funding councils' opinion of how matters have worked out.
The amendment directs that the annual report should deal with,
"the funding and quality of further education".
The linking together of those two words is the essence of the amendment. The Minister said, slightly to my surprise, on the previous amendment that he was a little worried by the introduction of the notion of quality into the notion of adequacy. I should have thought that those were as inseparable as David and Jonathan. There is a necessary connection here. Part of the purpose of drafting the amendment in this way is to bring to a head the debate on what the link may, or may not, be between quality and funding. I know that it is not a question which appears exactly the same on the two sides of the House. As a dispute may from time to time arise, an informed, thorough and professional opinion can be valuable. The question arises over and over again: is the level of provision enough for the objects it is designed to achieve? That is not the same as asking whether more money should be spent? It is a matter of the link between the level of provision and the object it is meant to achieve. It is becoming nowadays very difficult indeed to try to argue that the level of provision is not adequate to its objectives. Over and over again people say, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, did on the first amendment today, "This is the voice of the providers, it is self-interested". Practically any informed comment is liable to be dismissed with that argument.
Of course, there is a point here which is worth attention. That is precisely why it is important, if that question is being raised, to have a voice which is not open to objection, a voice which is at the least neutral. That is the usefulness of having a report dealing with the link between quality and funding by the funding council. The council must be presumed to carry the confidence of the Secretary of State. I cannot see why he should have appointed it if that were not so.
The Secretary of State's judgment in such a matter is not, of course, infallible; but it is becoming a constitutional argument: how the Secretary of State's judgment, if he persists in it year after year in the face of criticisim, can be made subject to review. No method of making it subject to review has yet proved
234
effective. It is no use saying merely that the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament, because every time anyone in Parliament says anything about it we receive, over and over again, the objection that that is the voice of the providers and there is no need to listen to it. A report from the funding councils on this question is badly needed. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I support the amendment. The Bill explicitly charges the funding councils with the duty of securing the assessment of quality, and establishes a committee to do just that and to give them advice. But quality itself is not defined. I believe that it is a word that has not previously been used in education legislation. Nor are the councils required to see that any particular level of quality is achieved, merely that quality should be assessed.
To elaborate a little on what the noble Earl said, where quality and funding are the responsibility of the same body there is a risk that financial considerations will affect decisions about quality. There must be a natural tendency for an acceptable level to be defined as the best level that can be afforded. Where expansion is taking place while resources are constrained, which is the position in further education today, the pressure to sacrifice effectiveness to economy is all the stronger.
The amendment requiring the publication of an annual report, setting quality in the context of resources, will make the funding councils be open about their responsibilities and facilitate the public accountability of the sector as a whole; so we on this side of the House support the amendment.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be to require that the councils should publish an annual report on the funding and quality of further education, the educational standards in FE and the management of resources. As the noble Earl said, an amendment of this kind is familiar, but the point is: is it necessary?
Clause 8 already lays a duty on the councils to provide the Secretary of State with such information on provision as he may require. It also empowers the funding councils to submit such information or advice relating to such provision as they think fit. It would thus be open to the Secretary of State to call for information about about funding, standards or management of resources from the council and it will be open to the council to submit such information on its own initiative. Further, colleges will be required under Clause 48 to publish information about the educational provision made or proposed to be made for their students and about educational achievements, and it will be open to the Secretary of State to specify that such information should include information on quality and standards.
After that litany, I do not believe that it is necessary to impose a further duty on the councils in that respect. Although I realise that the noble Baroness and the noble Earl have spoken in favour of the amendment, I hope that it will not be pressed.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we have been here before. Every time we try to ask for a report to be made to

235
Parliament or for it to be published, the Minister replies that the report will be made to the Secretary of State. That is not the same thing. I should be grateful if the Minister would not continue to answer these amendments as if it were.
The Secretary of State and Parliament are not synonymous. The procedure described by the Minister is a good one for informing the Secretary of State's judgment. What the procedure described by the Minister does not do is to provide any method of controlling the Secretary of State's judgment. But it is, as I see it, precisely the controlling of the Secretary of State's judgment which is the problem. Secretaries of State in this country enjoy a truly terrifying degree of power. If a Secretary of State should persist obstinately in an error—Secretaries of State are human beings and therefore like everyone else among us they must be capable of doing that—there does not seem to be any adequate means of control.
Every time we try to obtain impartial information laid before Parliament by which the judgment of the Secretary of State might be reviewed, the Minister simply replies that the information is put before the Secretary of State. That really is not good enough. I do not intend to divide the House at this time of night, but this issue will come up again. I beg the Minister to give a more considered answer to the real point at issue the next time this matter comes up.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, before the noble Earl decides to withdraw the amendment—if that is his intention—I hope I may remind him that the list of duties and powers on providing information includes a requirement on colleges, under Clause 48, to publish information about the educational provision,
"made or proposed to be made for their students"
and about educational achievements.
That provision does not depend upon the Secretary of State and involves the publication of information.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those comments. They go a very little way towards meeting my point. This is likely to be purely factual information. It will state that an institution has courses in X and Y and has Z number of students. If the information goes further than that, it will be dismissed as being simply the voice of a provider that does not need to be listened to. It does not get us anywhere with the real problem, which is that of controlling and reviewing the judgment of the Secretary of State. However, it is not my intention to divide the House on this matter now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Assessment of quality of education provided by institutions]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 7, line 31, leave out ("the quality of education provided") and insert ("and reporting on the quality of education across the service and over time").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 64, 151 and 153. Clause 9 concerns quality. I hope this
236
is the right place to move this amendment. The Minister criticised me for mentioning quality on Clause 6.
The Government's belief appears to be that quality control —the in-house procedures for maintaining standards at the point of delivery—is the responsibility of the colleges; that is, from 1993, governing bodies and their management teams. Quality assurance—the procedures for maintaining the standards of awards across this sector—will be the responsibility of the examining and validating bodies which themselves are subject to the rules of SEAC and NCVQ. Those two bodies will have oversight of the vast majority of courses described in Schedule 2. I think that is reasonable so far as it goes. Only those on the spot can check and change delivery in the classroom, and it is clearly the responsibility of those who kite-mark awards to ensure that one is as good as another if they bear the same label.
However, this minimal approach omits the assurance of basic skills and access courses which are in Schedule 2 but are not subject to SEAC and NCVQ. It also omits comparative surveys and the consequent accumulation of experience, especially of teaching, learning and institutional management, which is one of HMI's most useful functions. It omits the public reporting on organisational effectiveness and on trends of decline or improvement which HMI undertakes at present and, further, the giving of advice and help to institutions and teachers for the purpose of improving standards of service. That has been a forte of those who have observed and evaluated education over the years.
Will the phrase "quality assessment" embrace activities such as those I have listed? It would be preferable if they or something like them could be worked into the text. I suggest that an amendment should be made to paragraph (a) so that the subsection would read:
"Each council shall … secure that provision is made for assessing and reporting on the quality of education across the service and over time in institutions for which the council give, or are considering giving, financial support under this Part of this Act".
That still does not oblige the council to use HMI or an audit unit. Therefore, I hope that an amendment such as this might be acceptable to the Government.
An improvement could be made to subsection (2) of both Clause 9 and Clause 66. If the purpose of the committee is to give advice on assessing quality, surely a substantial proportion of the committee should have experience of inspection and/or quality assurance. I suggest an amendment to the subsection to read:
"The majority of the members of the committee shall be persons appearing to the council to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision, inspection and quality assurance of further education".
In the case of Clause 66 that would refer to higher education.
I hope that the Government might be sympathetic to those amendments and we shall receive a favourable reply this time. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, with respect to the noble Baroness, I do not think that there is a great deal of difference between Amendment No. 58 and the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which sought annual reports. In my answer to that amendment, which did not find favour with the noble Earl, I listed the different ways in which information about quality is provided, and in some cases is published, so far as concerns the council.
In response to this amendment I should remind the House that it was precisely to meet points that were made in Committee about the need for an independent view that we brought forward Amendment No. 62 which amends Clause 9 to provide that a majority of the members of the quality assessment committee shall be from outside the council. That shows that we are serious about the need to have what might be seen as an entirely independent view on the quality assessment committee.
I shall not read out the litany of ways in which information can be provided because if the noble Earl were present it would enrage him. However, there are a great many ways in which information can be or will be required to be provided. In some cases it will be published. As I imagine that there is no secrecy about any of these matters it is all information which sooner or later will be in the public domain. To add statutory reporting arrangements in addition is too much.
That is the only difference of view between the Government and the noble Baroness on this amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, has the noble Lord also replied to Amendment No. 64?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Baroness on the subject of Amendment No. 64. I had overlooked the fact that that was to be dealt with together with Amendment No. 58. I apologise.
Baroness David: My Lords, my answer will be the same as always. I shall read, consider and take advice on the Minister's reply and possibly return to the matter. It is rather more than simply a matter of reporting. I should very much like to take advice and possibly return to the matter at Third Reading. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 7, line 32, leave out from ("institutions") to ("and") in line 34 and insert ("within the further education sector").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 9 provides that each further education funding council shall secure that provision is made for assessing quality of education. As it stands, the clause provides that that duty shall extend to assessment of the quality of education provided in institutions for which the council gives, or is considering giving, financial support. The effect of the amendment is to restrict the duty to all institutions within the further education sector.
I ask noble Lords to consider the amendment alongside the proposed new clause to follow Clause 52 which makes it clear that local education authorities
238
will be responsible for keeping under review the quality of education in institutions that they continue to maintain. That will secure quality control where a maintained institution is indirectly assisted by the council under the arrangements in Clause 6(5). Other financial assistance that the council may give under Clause 5(5) will be in respect of training, advice or research rather than education, so it does not need to be covered by the arrangements in Clause 9. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as I understand it —and I think that the Minister has been quite clear in introducing the amendment —the effect would be to restrict the responsibility of the council for assessing quality to those institutions that are within the FE sector; that is, to those colleges that acquire corporate status as a result of the Bill when it is enacted. However, unless specific alternative arrangements were made, there would be no requirement to check on the quality of work provided as a result of external funding provided by the councils. That would include Schedule 2 work carried out by the LEA-maintained adult education institutions, although I understand that the Minister has just said that, under a later amendment, the local authority would retain the right to inspect. However, more importantly, it would, as I understand it, mean that the funding councils had no duty to ensure the quality of provision for special education needs secured outside the FE sector. Will the Minister say how quality will be assessed in that area?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. I asked the House to see the amendment alongside the proposed new clause to follow Clause 52, which makes it clear that local education authorities will be responsible for keeping under review the quality of education in institutions that they continue to maintain. That was exactly what I said. That will secure quality control through the LEAs where a maintained institution is indirectly assisted by the council under the arrangements in Clause 6(5).
I shall have to write to the noble Baroness about the special education point as I am not aware of it. It is obviously a point of some importance and I promise to write to her and send a copy of my letter to the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Seear, who are on the Front Benches of their respective parties this evening.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 7, line 38, at end insert:
("(c) establish a committee, to be known as the "Curriculum Advisory Committee", with the function of consulting at national level upon the educational and training strategy for this sector and of giving advice to the council on the discharge of their duty under paragraph (a) above and such other functions as may be conferred on the committee by the council.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 60 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 61, 63 and 86.
Regrettably, this Bill totally lacks an educational rationale, as I and other noble Lords said in

239
Committee. Instead, it concerns itself entirely with the structures and funding of further education and the philosophy of extending competition into the sector. Without any curricular dimension to the Bill, there continues to be a lack of coherence between the pre-16 and post-16 experience of young people. Many criticisms can be made of the Education Reform Act 1988, but at least an education philosophy lay at its heart in Clause 1(2), which referred to the need for schools to establish:
"a balanced and broadly based curriculum which promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society; and prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life".
The Government's proposals in the White Paper that preceded that Bill—Education and Training for the 21st Century—for parity of esteem between A levels on the one hand and vocational qualifications on the other through the ordinary advanced diploma system will regrettably do nothing to improve our low full-time participation rates compared with those of our competitors in other countries. It is possible that more detail concerning the educational content of the White Paper will be provided through DES circulars. That method was used in the recent consultation about the ordinary and advanced diplomas. But I fear that such a piecemeal approach to implementation militates against the integrated approach to the post-16 curriculum and organisation which ought to underpin the Bill itself.
It also runs counter to the need for continuity within the 14 to 19 curriculum, which was identified by the National Curriculum Council in its most recent corporate plan. That established the 14 to 19 curriculum as a priority area in the coming year. Yet the Government seem to be overlooking the work of their own advisers in that respect.
Perhaps I may say a few words about what the amendments ought to achieve. Amendment No. 60 gives the funding council at national level a duty to establish a curriculum advisory committee that would look at the needs of the further education sector and try to establish a consensus about the educational needs of the whole sector. Those educational needs do not need to focus solely on the name and nature of qualifications. The processes and experience inside and outside the classroom must also be examined.
At a local level the amendments place a duty on the corporations to provide an appropriate curriculum, building on local strengths within a national framework. That means the involvement of teachers, students, governors and employers in identifying the educational entitlement of students in FE.
Under the terms of the Bill the majority of the members of the proposed quality assessment committee shall have experience or have shown capacity in the provision of further education. An important role of that committee and the committees established by the amendments will be to advise on the quality of education and on improvements in classroom practice, which in turn should lead to improvements in the achievement of pupils.
The committee needs to have all-round experience and knowledge of further education. For example, a
240
committee member should be aware of the interrelationship between equality of opportunity, access and provision, including that for pupils, young people and students with special educational needs, and educational achievement. If teachers in an institution are to have respect and confidence in assessing the quality of education, it is essential that the committees should include members who are qualified teachers. That is provided for in Amendment No. 63.
The amendments would give a much needed curricular dimension to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me if at this late hour I seem to become a little pedantic or even jaundiced. I believe that the amendment is flawed. There is a reference to:
"the educational and training strategy for this sector".
But I believe it is appropriate to point out that Clause 9, like Clauses 8, 7, 6 and 5 before it, refers to both the higher education and the further education sectors. Therefore the amendment could scarcely stand in its present form.
Moreover, subsection (c) proposes to set up a curriculum advisory committee but subsection (b) before it has just set up a quality assessment committee. The noble Baroness suggested that one of the functions of the proposed curriculum advisory committee would be to make comments on the evaluation of quality. Matters have already become complicated in another area and will become complicated again in the area of quality evaluation. There appears to be a tendency toward reduplication in this field. I have much sympathy with the noble Baroness's objective. But would it not have been better served by a more modest amendment to paragraph (b)? The Bill already provides for the establishment of a quality assessment committee,
"with the function of giving … advice on the discharge of their duty under paragraph (a) … and such other functions as may be conferred on the committee by the council".
I should have thought that it might well have been sufficient to make some suggestions as to what further duties could be added. Do we really need two committees when one might suffice?
11.45 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord in saying that I am not absolutely clear why the considerable number of other bodies could not be used for that objective. I have in mind such bodies as the National Training Task Force, the Further Education Unit, the National Curriculum Council, the National Council for Vocational Qualifications and, not least, Her Majesty's Government. They are involved to a lesser or greater extent in the task which the noble Baroness sets in the amendment. Although those bodies may have their hands full, I cannot believe that there is not one among them which would not be eager to take some part in the work that is set by this amendment instead of creating a new body.
I was not entirely sure from the noble Baroness's remarks whether this anxiety was behind the amendment: that there should be channels through

241
which those involved in education and training at national level can comment on the funding councils' quality assessment arrangements or other aspects of their performance. There is nothing in the existing legislation to prevent them from doing so. That causes me to wonder again why the large number of expert bodies which, broadly speaking, exist in this field could not have been lighted upon as being the instruments through which the noble Baroness would set up this body.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am a little puzzled as to why he suggested that there are many other expert bodies which could do the job better. I am puzzled in particular by his reference to the National Curriculum Council. I did not believe that it covered further education; I thought that it covered primary and secondary education. It would be widening its remit to expect it to carry out the work of a committee on the curriculum—as the amendment proposes—which would specifically advise the funding councils in that area.
I accept that the Further Education Unit in the Department of Education undertakes work in this field. However, it advises Ministers rather than the funding councils. Again it might find itself in a slightly difficult position if it were asked to do both.
On the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I do not believe that the quality assessment committee could do the job that I have in mind. It is a quite different role from commenting on or advising on the development of the curriculum for 16 to 19 year-olds in further education, in particular when considering how that ought to relate to what is happening to 14 to 16 year-olds. I believe that everyone in the House will agree that there is a need for continuity.
I accept the noble Lord's first point that the amendment may be flawed. In the light of that, I shall be happy to consider whether an improved amendment can be brought forward at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should point out that if Amendment No. 62 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 63 to 66 inclusive.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 7, line 39, leave out from ("committee") to end of line 41 and insert:
("(a) shall be persons falling within subsection (2A) below, and
(b) shall not be members of the council.
(2A) Persons fall within this subsection if they appear to the council to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, the provision of further education and, in appointing such persons, the council shall have regard to the desirability of their being currently engaged in the provision of further education or in carrying responsibility for such provision.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, anxieties were expressed by your Lordships during the Committee stage debate on the parallel clause in Part II that there should be a voice for current practitioners on the
242
quality assessment committees and that a majority of members should not also be members of the funding council.
The Government have accepted the force of these arguments in relation to further education as well as higher education. The Secretary of State appreciates the importance of institutions having full confidence in the quality assessment procedures. The Government have tabled this amendment which will require the funding councils to have regard to appointing, as part of the majority of members on the committee, people currently engaged in the provision of further education. This is similar to the amendment to Clause 1 concerning the membership of the further education funding councils themselves.
The second effect of this amendment is to require that a majority of members of the quality assessment committee shall not also be members of the funding council. The Government have concluded that a statutory requirement of this kind would provide an important guarantee of the independence of the committee's operations and advice. The two limbs of the amendment are in response to views expressed at an earlier stage. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for taking enough time to repeat the warm thanks that I offered to the Minister for the equivalent concession in Amendment No. 10. We are glad to see this amendment and I am grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 65 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Functions of local education authorities in respect of further education]:
Baroness Lockwood Baroness Lockwood moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 8, line 24, at end insert ("including youth work").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 71. They are concerned with the youth service. In Committee we spent some time discussing the youth services, which cover 5 million young people at any one time. I shall not dwell on the details of the service except to remind your Lordships that there was general agreement in Committee about the value of the service educationally, socially and spiritually.
In response the Minister spoke appreciatively of the service. He gave a detailed and complex explanation of cases where the youth service is a statutory responsibility under previous legislation. When I looked at the references that he gave I found that nowhere is it stated specifically. To be fair to the Minister, I believe that he indicated that. It is all a question of inference and general responsibilities.
The Minister also wrote to the National Youth Agency. Perhaps I may quote one sentence of his letter. He stated:
"May I again confirm that the revised section 41, which is inserted under clause 11, continues to cover the youth service, and that the service is statutorily part of further education".
The Minister states that clearly in the letter but the clause itself does not state it so clearly. The purpose of the two amendments is to insert the fact that further

243
education includes youth work. I do not understand why the Minister is so reluctant to make that specific. As he well knows, the National Youth Agency and many other national youth organisations are anxious that the Bill should clearly state that youth work is a statutory responsibility. It is not an idle wish on their part. In these difficult days of rate-capping and financial constraints, such a specific reference would safeguard their interests and to some extent strengthen their hand when dealing with competing claims on limited finances.
The amendment may not be as well drafted as the Minister would wish but perhaps he will agree in principle that there should be a specific reference to youth work or the youth services. If he agrees with that but cannot accept this amendment, perhaps he will be prepared to meet my sponsors and myself on this problem. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, this is an important issue and I shall take up the time of the House for a few moments. I read carefully the reply which the Minister gave in Committee in which he said that the proposed changes to Section 41 of the 1944 Act, linked with the old Section 53 of the Act, covered the youth services issue.
The proposed Section 41 lays upon local authorities the duty to provide further education, and subsection (3) defines further education. It states that further education means:
"full-time and part-time education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age (including vocational, social, physical and recreational training); and organised leisure-time occupation provided in connection with the provision of such education".
Section 53 of the Act states:
"facilities for primary, secondary and further education provided for their area include adequate facilities for recreation and social and physical training".
In both cases we are looking at social, physical and, in one case, vocational training. That is a relatively limited definition and I suggest to the House that it does not adequately cover the totality of what we mean by youth services.
In his reply in Committee the Minister said that at present in legislation there is no definition of "youth service". If that be true—and I am sure that it is—it is high time that such a definition were put on the statute book. To be helpful I suggest that a possible definition may be: "All those services which will tend to help young people to develop into balanced, happy, healthy individuals and to play their part in the life of the community in which they live".
I give the House two examples which would not be covered by the definition in the Act: namely, the counselling of young people and the befriending of young offenders. Those are extremely important issues in the work of the youth service. One group in our community in great need of help today are those young people who have suffered from the withdrawal of parental support, or worse, those suffering from low self-esteem who lack adults whom they can trust and respect. That group is particularly vulnerable to crime, prostitution, alcohol and drugs. I believe that we need to provide a wide range of youth services,
244
including counselling and befriending, which will be needed to bring those young people back into the mainstream of our society.
The duty to make such a provision should be laid clearly upon the local authority and it is not so laid in the Bill as it stands. This amendment would supplement the provisions which are already in the Bill with the wider duty to provide such youth services as are needed by their population.
I believe that this is an important amendment. I hope that the Minister will either accept it or return at a later stage with a revision of it.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I emphasise my support for the amendment. As a former teacher, alas, I am only too aware of students who seem totally turned off by traditional schooling, whether in further education colleges or sixth form colleges and so on. Sometimes it is their own fault, sometimes it is the fault of their teachers and at other times it is the fact that they suffer from undiagnosed learning difficulties such as dyslexia or autism.
There are countless young people who, as children, are deemed to be almost ineducable and yet, as teenagers, develop late to become what the Americans rather charmingly call "late bloomers". There are many reasons why young people are encouraged and stimulated by taking part in the valuable activities and classes that are run by the youth service to develop innate but hitherto unsuspected talent. Non-academic activities are particularly valuable for students at further education colleges which do not necessarily offer the more structured general curriculum of school sixth forms.
As I said in Committee, I beg the Government to ensure that youth work is included in the provision of education which,
"It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure".
I shall be grateful for the assurance of my noble friend the Minister that the local youth service needs of the young people of each community—their present, their changing and even new needs which are bound to develop from time to time—are provided for in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 67 and 71 are, to use the Minister's own words in Committee, looking for more than simply sticking the phrase "youth work" on the face of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will take the point away and look at it again.
12 midnight
Lord Rochester: My Lords, in Committee I supported the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, to bring the youth service within the scope of the Bill. In doing so I said that the Scout Association, with which I have long had a connection, considered that although the majority of local authorities provided for the service, it was at a reduced level compared with the support given in the past. That organisation therefore believed that it was time for a statutory duty to be placed on local authorities for that purpose. In support of that view I learned only today that the county of Warwickshire is now proposing to dispense altogether with expenditure on the service.

245
As has already been said, in his reply to the Committee the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred to the problems associated with trying to bring the youth service within the scope of the Bill. In the light of those problems the noble Lord advised us to think again. That we have done, as is evidenced in the amendment, by eliminating all reference to the youth service as such, and instead referring simply to youth work in general.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, responded sympathetically to the earlier debate on this subject. Along with other noble Lords, therefore, I hope that he will now either accept the amendment in its present form or, following the support it has received from all parts of the House, agree to bring forward a government amendment at Third Reading to achieve the purpose that we have in mind.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we are again discussing a matter which is obviously of interest to your Lordships. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord Northbourne, my noble friend Lady Brigstocke and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for remaining until this late hour to discuss this specific matter.
As I explained to your Lordships at the Committee stage, the provision of what is known as the youth service is already covered in the Bill within the broad definition of further education. The youth service is not specifically mentioned —indeed, it is not in existing legislation—but the relevant statutory basis is under the revised Section 41 of the Education Act 1944 set out in Clause 11, which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
The introduction of the words "youth work" to try to define further what is meant by further education adds not a great deal to the Bill or indeed to the powers already available to provide a youth service under Clause 11. There are two specific problems which I must place before your Lordships. One is that by identifying youth work specifically as part of further education it could be argued that youth work might otherwise be excluded from other parts of the education Acts, of which this Bill will form a part, that relate to local education authorities' provision of further education. I shall look at this matter. It has been expressed very eloquently this evening. We have to look at that particular point.
The other point which needs to be looked at was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in a most informed way. I am not saying that it is, but if it were possible to put either youth work or youth service on the face of the Bill, there would have to be a definition. I thought that just for once the noble Lord was perhaps a little less than fair when he made the point that, for instance, counselling is not covered in the existing revised Section 41. I should have thought that social training did cover counselling. I am only giving my view. I believe that the noble Lord's point was not a very good one. However, I believe that, as regards the befriending of young offenders, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, had a telling point. I acknowledge that he did.
246
I have listened with interest to the arguments which your Lordships have put forward both today and at Committee stage. I appreciate the genuine anxieties that lie behind what has been said. I also acknowledge the expertise that lies behind what has been said. The Government fully support the youth service and the value of youth work for young people. I should like to look at this matter again. I do not want the Government unnecessarily to stand in the way of doing something which obviously your Lordships feel strongly about. However, I have pointed to two specific difficulties that there are and there may be others.
I undertake to write to the noble Baroness who moved the amendment and to send copies of the letter to those of your Lordships who have taken part in the debate on the amendment so that noble Lords can decide what the next step shall be.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that assurance. We all agree with him that the service is covered, but in a vague kind of way. I am sure that we should all like to insert a suitable definition of youth work if we can agree on it. I hope that, in addition to writing to us, the Minister will also consult us on what the amendment should be. In the light of the assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford The Lord Bishop of Guildford moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 8, line 24, at end insert:
("(1A) A local education authority shall discharge that duty so as—

(a) to secure that facilities are provided at such places, are of such character and are so equipped as to meet the reasonable need for education to which subsection (1) above applies, and

(b) to take account of the different abilities and aptitudes of persons within its area.").

The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the responsibilities of the local education authority. The Minister will remember that, since the publication of the White Paper, there has been concern about the division of funding of adult education between the funding council and the local authority. There has been the anxiety that leisure-time adult education may be undervalued. It seems important to clarify and re-emphasise the responsibilities of the local education authority.
Therefore, this amendment proposes to put on the local education authority a responsibility which is almost exactly comparable—but appropriate for its different responsibilities—to that allocated to the funding council in Clause 3(2) (a) in order to give a parallel responsibility, as far as it applies, recognising their different responsibilities. It is important that the local education authority's responsibility should be clear not least to those living in rural areas where there is anxiety that they may not have the same degree of access to the further education colleges where that sector of adult education will be provided.
When I raised this matter at Committee stage the Minister was kind enough to say that he understood the worries which prompted the amendment. He

247
recognised the force of the arguments; he said that he would like to consider a little further the implications, and that he would report back to this House. I do not see an amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, so I thought that he would like this opportunity of welcoming the amendment at this stage. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, as my name is to this amendment I should like to support it and add my hope that the Minister will keep his word, having said that he was very sympathetic and would look at it.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I certainly have kept my word in saying that I would look as sympathetically as possible at this amendment. Indeed, I have considered very carefully whether the Government could accept the amendment, but the trouble is that I am afraid that I have not reached the point where that can be done.
I have concluded that the amendment does not alter the force of the core duty upon local education authorities to secure the provision of adequate facilities for further education which falls outside the duty upon the funding councils.
What constitutes the adequacy of facilities is for the LEA to determine. There are statutory procedures for challenging LEA decisions about the adequacy of provision and, in the event of such a challenge, it would be for the Secretary of State to determine whether the LEA was in default of its duty.
Our concern about the amendment is simply this. An amendment by its nature presumes the introduction of some different effect within the legislation. But Clause 11, even with the amendment proposed, does not change the existing duty upon local education authorities. It could indeed be regarded as misleading for the Bill to include new wording which does not alter the force of a duty upon local education authorities which they have had since 1944.
Your Lordships have not asked me, but your Lordships may well be thinking—and the right reverend Prelate might ask in his concluding remarks—why wording of this kind has been introduced in Clause 3 if it it not acceptable in Clause 11. In fact it is implicit in what the right reverend Prelate said that that question must be at the front of his mind. The first answer is that we are introducing a new statutory duty upon the funding councils whereas we are maintaining an existing statutory duty which has existed for over 40 years upon the local education authorities. The second answer is that the councils' duty encompasses the whole country and it is therefore reasonable to set out in a little more detail how it is to be carried out. Local education authorities are already aware that their duty is to provide a local service to suit local people.
I am genuinely sorry that I cannot accommodate the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness so far as this amendment is concerned, but I have tried to set out the reasons why that is so. Having hoped that I might come up to the gate in putting down an amendment, I am afraid that I have not been able to do so.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Honesty, which one would expect from someone speaking from these Benches, requires me to say that I do not find his response very convincing. Nonetheless, at this hour of night I do not think that I have any option but to seek the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment. In doing so I hope that better counsels might yet prevail.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 69.
Page 8, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament in respect of each financial year in which this section is applicable a statement that adequate financial resources are available to funding councils and to each local education authority to enable them to provide adult education of high quality sufficient to the needs of their areas.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is yet another attempt to ensure that there is adequate provision for adult education in this country. We have been assured that it is a duty on local authorities to make provision for leisure time activities, but there is more than a lurking feeling that it will come very much at the end of the obligations which are accepted by the local authorities. There is a very real danger that the adult education provision will be the Cinderella of the education services. In our view that would be disastrous. The role of adult education in a society changing as fast as ours is changing, with new needs for different categories of people emerging all the time, is very great indeed. Unless there are real financial resources, nothing very much will happen and the existing adult education provision—although it will not be done away with—will gradually dwindle until it is of very little value.
This amendment is intended to make sure that there really are adequate financial resources available. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to add my support as my name is to this amendment. Acceptance of this amendment would show that the Government's intentions, about which we hear a great deal as far as concerns adult education, really are serious and genuine.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I am uneasy about the amendment on several grounds. Two are purely technical. Clause 11 states:
"For section 41 of the Education Act 1944 (functions of local education authorities in respect of further education) there is substituted".
It is an odd function of the local education authority that the Secretary of State should do something. That is a technical point. My second technical point is that we could well imagine that in certain circumstances a local authority might not be able to provide sufficient money for the reason that it was running short of money. We are all aware that some local authorities have overspent. In that circumstance, for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a statement that "adequate financial resources are available" would be most imprudent. The amendment should not read,
"a statement that adequate financial resources are available".
It should read:

249
"a statement as to whether or not adequate financial resources are available".
That could easily be put right by a small amendment.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made an interesting observation earlier in the debate. He observed, if I quote him correctly, that it is axiomatic that the amount of money is never enough to meet the needs. In a way one feels that in most walks of life. It would be a most unusual provision to ask the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a statement that money was sufficient. Unfortunately, I am not a lawyer, and my noble friend Lord Renton, who often advises me on these matters, is not beside me this evening. I should be surprised if there are comparable provisions elsewhere in the statute book. Perhaps noble Lords opposite can advise on that point.
Ultimately in many ways I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. One wishes that sufficient resources should be made available—I have every sympathy with that—but I wonder whether it is possible to legislate that sufficient resources should be made available. In the final analysis I agree that much of what we are discussing throughout the Bill is whether enough money is being put, will be put or has been put into various areas of education. Some of us may well feel that in certain areas not enough has been put or is likely to be put. That point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I have much sympathy with it. However, I am uneasy as to whether one can solve the problem simply by proclaiming that the Secretary of State should declare that enough money has been made available. For that reason, although I do not disagree with the amendment, I am uneasy about it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. I have been looking at the wording of the clause. I do not think that the placing of the amendment is quite as inappropriate as the noble Lord suggested. The clause concerns the duties of local authorities and the ability of local authorities to carry out those duties. It is the ability of local authorities to carry out those duties on which this amendment bears.
The noble Lord also drew attention to the possibility that local authorities may not have enough money. That is precisely why my noble friend Lady Seear put down this amendment. We have been discussing and will discuss again the revenue support grant to local authorities and how far that is calculated in a way suitable to take account of the provision of adult education. If a local authority does not have enough money it would be legitimate to ask the Secretary of State to look at the revenue support grant and ask whether it took the needs of adult education adequately into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, quoted me almost accurately but, as is inevitable with quotations from memory, not quite accurately. There are two significant differences. First, I did not say it was axiomatic. I was not talking about the general situation of money not being sufficient. I was talking about a specific problem which I see as peculiar to the lifetime of this Government. Secondly, I was not just
250
saying that money is not sufficient to do what one would like. I know that that is always with us. I was trying to allege something that is a good deal more fundamental than that—an insufficiency of money to discharge all the functions that are meant to be discharged; a real mismatch between funding and function. I shall not detain the House any further with that now.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should have thought that this was an area where the public expenditure round and the Autumn Statement were the correct vehicles for giving information from a Minister through Parliament to the country. It enables both Houses of Parliament to question the Ministers or representatives of the departments concerned as the individual plans resulting from the Autumn Statement for the departments become clearer, particularly the capital expenditure plans and others.
Therefore, with respect to the noble Baroness, this is not the first time that I have heard her in equally persuasive tones endeavouring to get such an amendment on to the statute book. Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I should have thought that there was obviously merit in wanting to see that Parliament and the public are made aware of what are the amounts of money for departmental functions and views from Ministers as to whether the money is sufficient. But this derives or flows from the time of the Autumn Statement in statements which are made or extracted from Ministers in both Houses of Parliament as the months go by after the public expenditure round.
I echo the remark of my noble friend Lord Renfrew that it would be unusual to have an amendment of this kind. Education legislation provides many statutory duties for which funding must be available and it would be strange to single out one set of duties for the treatment proposed in this amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his not altogether surprising reply. I do not regard the fact that it is unusual as necessarily an argument against the amendment. There always has to be a first time, even for a Conservative government. However, at this time of night the last thing I intend to do is to test the opinion of the House and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 70 to 72 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 9, line 34, at end insert:
("( ) In exercising their functions under this section a local education authority shall secure that provision is made for reporting on the quality of education across the service and over time in institutions for which the local education authority give, or are considering giving, financial support under this Part of the Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to secure provision for quality assurance in the LEA sector. It implies a continuing role for LEA inspection and advisory services. Can the Minister tell us how he sees a continuing role for HMIs in this context? The Government have given repeated assurances recently about the importance

251
which they place on the continuing adult education provision to be made by LEAs. This is not reflected in the drafting of the Bill.
All education provision should be subject to professional quality assurance mechanisms. LEAs will in the main wish to continue their inspection and advisory roles for their own adult education but, like the further education funding councils, they should be required, not merely empowered, to do so. This was not picked up at Committee stage and I had heard that the Government were thinking of introducing an amendment of this kind themselves. However, it does not seem to have appeared. The issue seems to me to need to be addressed. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government's amendment in the form of a new clause after Clause 52 would place a duty upon LEAs to keep under review in institutions maintained or assisted by them the quality of education provided, the educational standards achieved and the management of financial resources. It would also allow local education authorities to cause inspections to be made by persons authorised by them.
In addition, the funding councils and their quality assessment committees will themselves have a duty to secure that provision is made to assess the quality of all the education provided in institutions within the FE sector, which may include education which falls within the duty of the LEA and is funded by the LEA.
Precisely how the councils and committees assess quality will be a matter for them. They may wish to involve LEAs in so far as particular courses are funded by them. As for the LEAs, they will be free to set conditions which will no doubt include conditions on quality and standards for any financial support they give, or propose to give, to institutions within the sector.
252
Those are strong proposals. However, the noble Baroness is not satisfied that they go far enough. I do not believe that it is necessary to put an explicit duty on LEAs to report on quality. The process of accountability will mean that reports go before local authority education committees in respect of the LEA's exercise of its functions. Such proceedings are generally open to public scrutiny. It is not necessary to legislate here on matters which are part and parcel of local government business.
The amendment does not tell us to whom the LEA should report or what the nature of the report should be. On those grounds, the amendment is technically defective. We can leave reporting matters to LEAs in the exercise of their functions. I hope that the noble Baroness is persuaded to withdraw the amendment. Before she decides, on her question about what part HMIs will play and so forth, perhaps we may wait until I move the amendment after Clause 52 when we deal with that point on Thursday.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am sorry, I have not studied the amendment. I was aware that it would not be dealt with until Thursday. I knew for the first time yesterday of its existence. I did not connect it with this clause, and that is my fault. I shall read carefully the amendment and what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past midnight.