Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 14 January 1992 vol 534 cc191-252

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 3.

Baroness Lockwoodmoved 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—

1. (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
2. (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 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 Davidmoved 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 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 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 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 Davidmoved 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 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 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 Russellmoved 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. 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 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)moved Amendment No. 35:

Page 69, line 7, at end insert:

1. ("(i) a course in independent living skills for persons with learning difficulties,
2. (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 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 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 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 Furnessmoved 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—

1. (a) the facilities available in institutions within the further education sector or the higher education sector are not adequate for him, and
2. (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—

1. (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
2. (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 Bromptonmoved, 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 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 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 Furnessmoved 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 Davidmoved 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 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 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 Davidmoved 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 Teviotmoved 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 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 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. 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 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.]

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.

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 Furnessmoved 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 Davidmoved 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 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 Davidmoved 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:

1. (a) the need to secure adequate facilities for the further education of the population of rural areas,
2. (b) the needs of small specialist colleges, and
3. (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 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 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 Belsteadmoved 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 Belsteadmoved 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 Guildfordmoved 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 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 Davidmoved 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 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. 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 Davidmoved 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 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 Russellmoved Amendment No. 57A:

Page 6, line 41, leave out ("and") and insert: ("(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 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 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 Davidmoved 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 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 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 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 Blackstonemoved 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 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 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 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 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 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 Lockwoodmoved 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 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, 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. 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.

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 Guildfordmoved Amendment No. 68:

Page 8, line 24, at end insert: ("(1A) A local education authority shall discharge that duty so as—

1. (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
2. (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 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 Seearmoved 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: 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 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 Davidmoved 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 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.

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.