Further and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 14 January 1992 vol 534 cc122-82

3.35 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [The Further Education Funding Councils]:

Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 10, at end insert ("for the purposes of exercising functions in respect of further education including the funding of adult education which does not fall to be incorporated within the calculation made by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 11(2A) below").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 70. There has been a great deal of anxiety about many aspects of the Bill, notably the proposals which allow the Secretary of State to interfere in the work of individual institutions in higher education. There has been more widespread anxiety in the country about the potentially damaging effects on adult education than about any other part of the Bill, including those courses relating to higher education.

The great value of adult education to the community is undoubted. It is central to the creation of a learning society, to the notion of lifelong education, which is something which we all wish to create. It is particularly important for those adults who did not have opportunities for post-school education—opportunities which are now available to many more young people than was true 25 or 30 years ago. Surely we should do all we can to encourage older people to return to study, to embrace the values of self improvement, to continue to be curious and to want to learn well into old age.

Adult education is particularly important for unemployed people. For some of them it is important as a way of keeping sane. For others, it is important as a method in the longer term of improving their qualifications and thereby their chance of obtaining a job. It is particularly important for the growing population of elderly and retired people in this country, many of whom may be bored, lonely, or both. It provides an opportunity for older people to keep in touch with other people, including younger members of the community, in a positive way. Indeed, it is vital to the quality of their lives and their own self images. Over more than a century we have built up opportunities for adult education and it would be a tragedy for our education system and, indeed, for the country if this Bill led to its long-term decline.

In September the Secretary of State announced, after many protests, that the Government had decided that the local education authorities would retain the duty to provide so-called leisure courses. I say as an aside that the division between leisure and vocational or academic courses is both impractical and arbitrary. As many other commentators on the Bill have said, students, not providers, decide the purpose of a course. Students on the same course may have very different aims. Moreover, their aims may change during the time in which they are undertaking the course.

Ministers have given assurances on several occasions that adult education fees need not rise because local education authorities will be left with adequate financial support to maintain an equivalent level of provision within the reduced scope of their duties. However, anxiety remains among LEAs and those running and teaching in adult education institutions as to whether the funding will prove adequate, bearing in mind the current financial constraints and restrictions which LEAs are suffering.

The main justification for the amendment is that it gives legislative force to the undertakings given by Ministers. Therefore, the Government should have little difficulty in accepting it in principle.

There are two main reasons why the promise of the continuation of funding at present levels will not protect adult education if the Bill goes through in its present form. First, splitting responsibility for managing further education provision as a whole and allowing both schools and incorporated institutions the freedom to offer leisure services will remove the LEAs' scope for cross subsidy and economies of scale.

Schools and incorporated colleges will be able to improve their fee income by offering popular and cheap courses. By way of illustration, keep fit classes come into that category at marginal cost to the institution. On the other hand, LEAs will be left with a duty to provide the more expensive courses and to cater for those sections of the population without the ability to pay higher fees; for example, the elderly, the unemployed and single parents for whom, as I have already said, such courses serve a vital role. However, those courses will be at much higher unit costs. Current funding, which will be split according to the balance of provision that existed in 1989, will not cover those higher unit costs and, therefore, either fees will rise or provision will be lost.

The second point is that the standard spending assessment which is used to distribute government grants is currently based on data that does not include account of how much adult education is actually being provided. The expenditure blocks that include funding for adult education are taken partly by account of students on courses that fall within Schedule 2 to the Bill, and are thus to transfer to the new funding council, and partly according to the total adult population. Neither of those relate closely to the real needs of individual authorities.

The Department of Education and Science recently carried out a survey of LEAs to establish the current level of funding by local authorities on adult education. That has run into considerable difficulties which are being discussed by the DES and the local authority associations. Since LEAs currently do not divide the adult education provision that they make in the way that the Bill proposes, it is difficult for them to assess the level of spending according to those categories.

The amendment will require the Department of the Environment to modify the standard spending assessment system so that support of each local authority reflects the provision that they actually make. The issue of securing adequate funding for adult education is of great importance. It is obvious that it causes strong feeling among the general population. Eight major organisations representing the planners, providers and users of adult education presented a petition on adult education to Parliament just before Christmas. It contained half a million signatures. It urged the Government to ensure a secure future for adult education.

I, and I am sure many other Members of your Lordships' House, received many letters and copies of hundreds of other letters sent to the Prime Minister, other Ministers and MPs protesting about the Government's plans in the Bill for adult education. However, by accepting the amendment the Government can demonstrate their commitment to adult education and thus reassure the many thousands of people who are anxious, and rightly anxious, that adult education will be seriously damaged when the Bill is enacted. I beg to move.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn

My Lords, many of us on this side of the House greatly sympathise with some of the intentions of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. Provision of adult education is of the greatest value. I know anxieties have been expressed in discussions in relation to the Bill that adult education may not be provided at an appropriate level. We therefore have every sympathy with the point.

Unfortunately, the amendment may not in every way be a prudent one. Amendment No. 70, which I believe we are also discussing, states: In respect of further education for which provision is made by local education authorities … the Secretary of State shall incorporate in any calculation of revenue support in relation to further education … the full amount of such provision". I believe that amounts to the Secretary of State being obliged to sign a blank cheque; in other words, one group of people provides the provision in question and, if I do not misunderstand the amendment, a blank cheque is then picked up through the agency of the Secretary of State.

There clearly needs to be an adequate level of provision in the field of adult education. But it is not prudent to allow one providing authority to provide such provision as it sees fit and then expect another funding authority to foot the entire bill. In other words, one may find inappropriate, excessive, even profligate provision—though I accept that is not likely in every case—and the bill would still need to be picked up without there being any way of moderating it.

Although many of us feel considerable sympathy for [...]he intentions of the amendment of the noble Baroness, one must doubt the prudence of allowing one agency to lay down what will happen and make the provision and inviting somebody else to foot the Bill. That may be the road to profligacy and does not seem to be appropriate.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee

My Lords, I should like to express my strong support for the amendment. At the risk of repeating what has been said before on the matter in your Lordships' House I should like to point out the tremendous importance of adult education in this country, particularly for older people, pensioners and the unemployed. The opportunity it offers for people in unfortunate situations to get out of the home one morning or one evening a week, to escape from the kitchen, from the TV or loneliness, is important. That is the social therapy of many courses run throughout the country. There is also the creative therapy; that is, the ability that it gives to people to discover talents and abilities which they perhaps never knew they had. A combination of social and creative therapy is of tremendous importance.

The other point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was that no outsider, least of all Her Majesty's Government, can possibly tell what is the intention of each student on any given course. Anne Risman of the Richmond Adult and Community College cites a number of instances of a Minister going round and being surprised at what he found. She mentioned a student of cookery, a student of voice production, another of French and one of sewing. When those people were questioned the student of cookery was found to be a chef who had been made redundant who was studying for his Cordon Bleu qualification. The student of voice production was found to be a resting actor. One knows that most actors spend most of their time resting, but he was studying for his next lucky break. The student of French was a retired army major turned tour guide who wanted to improve his French. The student of sewing was a seamstress from the Royal Opera House who was taking extra lessons because she had an especially difficult task on hand. Those people were not simply enjoying leisure activities. One never knows at what they may be aiming until they are questioned in detail.

I have first-hand experience of adult education and perhaps I may be allowed to be anecdotal for a moment. In my home town of Rye we have a flourishing adult education centre. It gave rise to a society of amateur artists called The Tuesday Painters. They are called The Tuesday Painters because they first studied in an adult education class on Tuesdays. In the summer they held a large exhibition and around 400 pictures were exhibited, of which 99 were sold and just short of £6,000 made. That is an enjoyable leisure activity but it is also profitable. I can say that because two of the pictures were my own, and I say that in all modesty.

The adult education centre in Rye is entirely self-supporting. However, for the current year, the fees have had to be nearly doubled. As a result, regrettably, there has been a marked drop in the number of students. In the Hastings area as a whole the drop has been as much as 10 per cent. Rye is a rural area which has been particularly hit by the recession. The drop in the number of students there has been as great as 17 per cent.

The fear is that the funds will no longer be available for this very important aspect of the health and happiness of our retired and unemployed people. The trouble is that those most in need are those who are least able to afford the fees. A statutory commitment such as that proposed in the amendment would be a reassurance to many thousands of people who feel very strongly about this matter and from whom, as the noble Baroness said, we have heard. I strongly support the amendment.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I oppose this amendment. Apart from the blank cheque consideration to which reference has been made by my noble friend Lord Renfrew, surely this amendment creates a kind of disparity of provision. As regards Amendment No. 70, one has the blank cheque provision for the LEA and the full cost of the provision, whereas control by the Secretary of State of the finances of the funding councils, as I understand it, lies within his remit. Does the amendment not run against the grain of the Bill? Surely the intention of the Government is for the Bill to establish the funding councils within their province and to leave the LEAs with some of what was their province. The effect of the amendment is to reverse—that may be right or wrong—the intendment of the Bill.

Although I share every single aspiration so eloquently and beautifully expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the point made about creative therapy, and understand all that, surely what is proposed is contrary to one of the principles of the Bill, which, as I understand it, is to bring training within the funding councils. That is a very important asset of social and economic life today.

Lord Peston

My Lords, perhaps I may take a moment to clarify what the amendment is about, since there appears to be some misunderstanding. I would like to take noble Lords back to the origins of this matter. The Government published a discussion paper on the subject in which they said in terms that leisure courses not leading to a qualification would be charged at full cost. I asked a question of the Minister and I was assured that that was the case. There was a great uproar and the Government said that that was not what they meant at all, although that is what they had said. They went on to say that local authorities could subsidise leisure courses not leading to qualification because everyone saw that that was one of the more successful parts of the British education system.

In her amendment, my noble friend Lady Blackstone does not ask for a blank cheque but for support for this provision. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the further education funding councils do not have within their remit the subsidy of adult leisure courses, so that this amendment has nothing to do with that part of the Bill nor with the FEFCs' freedom and independence. This amendment is concerned with something which is quite specific and something to which the noble Lord said that he was sympathetic.

Perhaps I may give noble Lords an example of what the Bill does. If the Bill is passed as it stands, I can envisage a noble Lord rising at Question Time and asking about the ending of a particularly valuable course within some local authority. It might be an adult leisure course of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, has referred. The Minister would reply by saying that the matter had nothing to do with the Government. He would say that councils had the power to spend the money, but, if they did not have the money or did not choose to spend it, that was up to them. Those of us who have had experience of your Lordships' House in recent years would expect that to be exactly the answer that the Government would give.

The point of my noble friend's amendment is to say, "No, what is reasonable is for the funds to be provided by the Secretary of State". It does not, I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, provide for a blank cheque because it does not remotely give local authorities the opportunity to spend what they like. However, it obliges the Secretary of State to find funds to support a course where a case for it has been made. That is what the amendment seeks to do within the current levels of provision. It is a reasonable amendment and one that has not yet been rebutted.

The amendment calls the Government's bluff. It says to the Government, "You say that you favour these leisure courses, and that you were misunderstood in your earlier discussion paper. Now let it be made clear beyond peradventure that you really do believe in these leisure courses and you are not saying that they have to be provided only at full cost—which can be enormously expensive—and that the Secretary of State will recognise that fact in setting the level of support for local authorities". That is all the amendment is about. It is not a major issue in terms of public finance but it is a major issue in terms of adult education.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, we are at the Report stage and I appreciate that the noble Lord cannot reply to me but I really think he has made a rather strange point coming from a party which we understand aspires to government in suggesting that Amendment No. 70 is a suitable one to move when it provides that: the Secretary of State shall incorporate in any calculation of revenue support … the full amount of such provision". The blank cheque to which my noble friend referred is, as I understood it, not a blank cheque provided by the local authorities but one written on to the face of the Bill to oblige the Secretary of State to pay out revenue support for everything deemed to be required. That seems to be a most extraordinary way to legislate.

The noble Lord is shaking his head. I may be misunderstanding, but that is how I read the provision. I go along with most of what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said about adult education. I have had a great deal to do with it, although not in England. I am an enormously strong believer in it. I believe that the funding of adult education should remain with local authorities. I am very glad that it is because local authorities are well placed to provide it and to work out what is required. I repeat: whatever the noble Lord says, Amendment No. 70 states that, the Secretary of State shall incorporate in any calculation of revenue support … the full amount of such provision".

Earl Russell

My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lady Seear, whose name is added to the amendment, perhaps I may add a word or two. My noble friend Lord Ritchie of Dundee and I speak on behalf of a party which has a commitment to the ideal of education for life. That was reaffirmed by my right honourable friend Mr. Ashdown as recently as last week. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, have said. I see why they are concerned about the providers deciding the amount to be spent. The difficulty is that the providers are the only ones who know the actual costs.

I believe that in the next Parliament all of us on all sides of the House will have to think again about methods of financing the public services. What I am not convinced about is that we yet have an adequate substitute in place for the matters about which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness complain. The alternative that we have before us is the funding council method of finance. Having personal experience of that, about which I have declared an interest, I am not convinced that that system is a success. The essence of that method is that the Secretary of State not merely decides how much is to be spent, but also what the purchasing power of that money shall be. He decides how many units shall be supplied for it.

That is the command economy system of funding. If there are defects in blank cheques there are even greater defects in the command economy. In fact, I have come to think of the funding council system in recent weeks as the Aeroflot system of funding. It seems to me to be producing very much the same effect. So I think the system proposed by the amendment should be left in place for the time being because at least it does not destroy the service, unlike any other model yet in place. But more thinking is needed, as I shall be the first to say, and to repeat, and to attempt to join in whenever possible.

I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said about the amount of correspondence on this subject. I have received more correspondence on this part of the Bill than anything else which has been, before your Lordships' House since the restrictions on political activity by employees of local authorities. Your Lordships may remember that this House defeated the Government on that issue and another place, in its wisdom, decided to accept the defeat. I hope we may take that as a precedent.

I entirely agree with what everyone has said about the impossibility of the Government's distinction between leisure and educational courses. Last time I taught an adult education course most of the people there I thought regarded it as a leisure course. I came out of it with a new Ph.D student of the very highest quality.

We must think again, with an ageing population, about the ages at which people start jobs. I recall a Bill moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, about age discrimination in employment. Regrettably that did not reach the statute book, but the questions addressed by the noble Baroness will have to be addressed again. We shall have to think again about the age at which people may start on a new career. We may find then that some subjects which appear to be purely leisure activities could lead to new careers. I think the Exchequer, of all bodies, might find a great deal of reason to welcome that. One should also mention the qualification of informed citizenship for a democracy. Only this morning there is correspondence in the paper about the immense percentage of people—I think it is 65 per cent., though I quote from memory—who do not know what the letters RPI stand for. That is going to make life difficult for all of us in a little while. It is a good idea to have a system in place which helps to ameliorate that sort of ignorance.

The problem of standard spending assessments is one that needs a great deal of attention. I do not think that the present methods of calculating them are entirely satisfactory. A reinforcement in this area would be of value. The final argument I want to put is this: in a democracy is it wise to ignore a petition with half a million signatures?

4 p.m.

Lord Desai

My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, let me say that I look forward to the day when provision for education in this country is excessive or profligate—a consummation devoutly to be wished yet extremely unlikely to happen while the Treasury exists. We are debating the consequence of a change in the institutions and arrangements for funding adult education by which, until very recently, people were not feeling threatened. It was not profligate, but what was there, say, two or three years ago, was felt by people to be valuable and adequate. It was not costing us the earth and it was not costing us infinite amounts of money. Therefore, even if cheques are blank they are not going to be for infinite amounts of money when they are finally written in.

We are talking about an arrangement to take care of one part of adult education which is causing great and unintended consequences for another part of adult education. We are saying through this amendment that it would be good if we could, as it were, get back to a sort of status quo ante, which people used to find satisfactory. That would give the local authorities the money to meet such demands from adult education as may arise from their point of view. It would be false—and I will not make the point—to say that a great deal of education is going to be profitable. Leisure education is good for itself. Our citizens want it, so let them have it. What is wrong with it? It is very valuable to be able to spend one's spare time—lots of spare time—learning about whatever one wants to learn about. If anything, our problem is that there is too little education, not too much. Therefore, I believe that to raise the spectre of blank cheques is quite false. We are not talking about large sums of money but about a muddled change which, if supplemented by this amendment, will at least restore such inadequate provision for adult education as we have.

The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, we are discussing in this amendment an area of the Bill which, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is very important. Adult education provides opportunities for people of different ages and in different circumstances but they are always opportunities. They may be for the young or they may be for the old; they may be for those who need some form of basic numeracy or literacy which can in itself bring them satisfaction and happiness in their lives or lead on, through progression, to other courses. They can be simply courses of a vocational nature which, in turn, can also lead to academic courses.

The noble Baroness was quite right in introducing this amendment to speak for a few minutes about the importance of adult education. It is because we recognise the importance of adult education that we are ensuring in this Bill that the full scope of the duty to provide further education in law is maintained and is placed upon the funding councils and the local education authorities. Incidentally, it is also the reason why we have given an assurance that the local education authorities will retain adequate financial support to carry out their duties.

I do not agree that fewer people are likely to attend courses in local education authority institutions as a result of the Bill. We would expect that the overall numbers of people undertaking further education will rise and we are in favour of adult education of all kinds. Incidentally, it is worth mentioning that I think I am right in saying that the numbers of young people who are taking A-Levels in further education colleges have continued to rise. As we all know, there are different reasons why young people between the ages of 16 and 19 feel that a moment has come in their lives when they would prefer to go into further education, and that applies so far as adult education is concerned.

The Department of Education and Science has not just relied upon words but has actually tried to do something about this in the context of the Bill. The department has been carrying out a survey of spending by local education authorities and will be conducting follow-up work and discussions with the LEA associations. Most local authorities, I am told, have successfully completed the survey forms and we are confident that it is a survey which will help us to ensure that the local education authorities are adequately funded for the future.

Despite that, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, who I know is very well informed on these matters, expressed the fear that nonetheless funds would not be available for the future. I give an assurance that in setting the overall level of revenue support grants for each financial year the Government will continue to take into account the level of LEA spending on further education just as the Government do now. I have to say, however, that the Government must also retain discretion to take account of the overall level of spending on local authority services every year which the nation can afford. However, it will be, as now, for local education authorities to determine the level of their expenditure on further education within the limits implied by annual RSG settlements and taking account of their clear statutory duty to secure the provision of adequate facilities for further education.

It was in that context that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has made it clear that local education authorities will not have to raise fees for further education as a result of the reforms contained in this Bill. He quite clearly announced the intention that we shall leave within standard spending the resources attributable to the kinds of further education for which LEAs will continue to be responsible—an undertaking given towards the end of September by my right honourable friend and which I am very glad to repeat now.

I must not make it sound as if I did not listen to the detail of what the noble Baroness said about the problems of identifying exactly how much money there is and the way in which the standard spending assessments work. She feels that the amendment is necessary. I believe, however, that the amendment is fairly fatal on three grounds. First, it would place on the Government an entirely open-ended commitment to support, through RSG, expenditure on further education up to any level which local education authorities collectively chose to spend in any one year. If that is not a blank cheque, certainly it is a close cousin to one. My noble friends Lord Renfrew and Lord Campbell of Alloway were both justified in at least referring to that expression.

Secondly, the amendment would mean that the level of grant which an individual authority received for further education expenditure would be directly related to its overall spending on further education. In anyone's book that would undoubtedly reflect a clear disincentive to authorities to exercise their functions in the most cost-effective manner. Thirdly, it is a fundamental principle of our system of local government finance that revenue support grant is paid as a block without special protection for any particular service or part of a service. The principle is that local authorities make their own decisions about priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances, and they stand accountable to their electorates for the decisions they take. This principle would be completely breached if we legislated for special rules to apply to the payment of rate support grant for further education only.

The two sides of the House do not differ on the importance of adult education in the future. However, before I sit down I must underline again the important undertaking given by my right honourable friend. In leaving within standard spending the resources attributable to the kinds of further education for which LEAs will continue to be responsible he was quite clear that local education authorities would not have to raise fees for further education as a result of the reforms contained in the Bill. For that reason I believe that the amendment is not necessary. However, if the agreement were made, for the three reasons I gave a few moments ago I believe that it would have some very unfortunate consequences indeed.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask a question. I apologise for the fact that, for reasons over which I had little control, I was not present at the beginning of the debate. The noble Lord referred to the duty of local authorities to provide leisure activities. That is what I thought he said. The recognition that it is a duty on local authorities is of great importance. Am I right in thinking that the noble Lord said that it is a duty and not merely that local authorities are permitted to provide for leisure activities?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I wrote to the noble Baroness on 28th November. I owe her an apology. When originally the letter was sent it did not fall into her hands.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, I ask for belt and braces on this matter. I want to be absolutely certain.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, as a result of that unfortunate incident I sent the noble Baroness a copy of the letter. She may remember that embedded in the mid[...]le of page 2 were the words: Taken together these provisions impose on local education authorities a statutory duty to secure an adequate supply of those kinds of further education for adults not listed in Schedule 2, including most of what has traditionally been known as adult education".

Baroness Seear

My Lords, I thank the Minister for reading those words. It is worth while getting the point into Hansard again, which was why I raised it.

Lord Desai

My Lords, may I ask a further question for clarification? Is that allowed?

Noble Lords

No.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, although I have to admit that I am somewhat disappointed by it. The purpose of the amendments is to secure the financial future of adult education and to reassure the many people involved in adult education, including those who provide it, that the necessary funds will be available to make it possible for adult education, including so-called leisure courses, to go on being provided at current levels.

As my noble friend Lord Desai has already said, the sums involved are relatively small in relation to the total education budget. All the remarks about profligacy are out of place. I cannot believe that it is in the interests of any local education authority to be profligate in its spending in an area such as this. That would lead the Government to want to take action to ensure that it did not happen. It seems to noble Lords on this side of the House that only through this pair of amendments can we ensure that adult education will be maintained at its current levels.

I was pleased to hear that the Minister expects overall numbers in adult education to rise. They certainly ought to rise because of the enormous value of this form of educational provision. However, it is the view of those who operate the system that not only will levels fail to rise but they will actually decline under present financial arrangements.

The amendment is not an open-ended commitment to a[...]low huge sums of money to be spent. It is a commitment to support the levels of provision being made available by local education authorities to adults. It is perfectly possible within the amendment for the Government to have a ceiling on per capita spending on a specific course or range of courses being provided by local authorities. In that sense again there should be no disincentive in these amendments to cost-effectiveness. Nor can I accept that local authorities, which have to determine their own priorities, and want to determine their own priorities, will do anything other than welcome an amendment of this kind. In the light of what the Minister said in his rather disappointing reply, I feel I have no option but to test the opinion of the House.

4.17 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 106; Not-Contents, 137.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Jeger, B.
Airedale, L.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Annan, L.	John-Mackie, L.
Ardwick, L.	Judd, L.
Aylestone, L.	Kagan, L.
Banks, L.	Kennet, L.
Barnett, L.	Kirkhill, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Kirkwood, L.
Birk, B.	Listowel, E.
Blackstone, B.	Lockwood, B.
Blease, L.	Longford, E.
Bonham-Carter, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Mallalieu, B.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L.	Mayhew, L.
Campbell of Eskan, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Mishcon, L.
Castle of Blackburn, B.	Molloy, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Monkswell, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Mulley, L.
Combermere, V.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Craigavon, V.	Nicol, B.
Darcy (de Knayth), B.	Northfield, L.
David, B.	Ogmore, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Peston, L.
Desai, L.	Phillips, B.
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Ennals, L.	Rea, L.
Falkender, B.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Falkland, V.	Rochester, L.
Gallacher, L.	Russell, E. [Teller.]
Galpern, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Gladwyn, L.	Seear, B.
Glenamara, L.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Shepherd, L.
[Teller.]	Soper, L.
Greene of Harrow Weald, L.	Stedman, B.
Grey, E.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hampton, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Hamwee, B.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Hanworth, V.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Tordoff, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Underhill, L.
Hollick, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Hooson, L.	Whaddon, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	White, B.
Howie of Troon, L.	Wigoder, L.
Hughes, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Hunt, L.	Wilson of Langside, L.
Jacques, L.	Young of Dartington, L.
Jay, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailesbury, M.	Astor, V.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Auckland, L.
Ampthill, L.	Balfour, E.
Arran, E.	Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Belstead, L.	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Bessborough, E.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Birdwood, L.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Blake, L.	Malmesbury, E.
Blatch, B.	Mancroft, L.
Blyth, L.	Manton, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Marlesford, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Merrivale, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Mersey, V.
Brigstocke, B.	Monk Bretton, L.
Brookeborough, V.	Monson, L.
Brookes, L.	Montgomery of Alamein, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Mottistone, L.
Butterworth, L.	Mountevans, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Mountgarret, V.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Carnock, L.	Munster, E.
Cavendish of Furness, L.	Nelson, E.
Chalfont, L.	Newall, L.
Clanwilliam, E.	Norfolk, D.
Cochrane of Cults, L.	O'Cathain, B.
Colnbrook, L.	Onslow, E.
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Orkney, E.
Cottesloe, L.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Cross, V.	Oxfuird, V.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Pender, L.
Denton of Wakefield, B.	Perry of Southwark, B.
Eccles of Moulton, B.	Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Elibank, L.	Quinton, L.
Ellenborough, L.	Reay, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Renton, L.
Faithfull, B.	Richardson, L.
Ferrers, E.	Rippon of Hexham, L.
Flather, B.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Fortescue, E.	Savile, L.
Gainford, L.	Seccombe, B.
Gainsborough, E.	Shaughnessy, L.
Geddes, L.	Shrewsbury, E.
Gibson-Watt, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Gray of Contin, L.	Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Greenway, L.	Stockton, E.
Gridley, L.	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Halsbury, E.	Strange, B.
Hardinge of Penshurst, L.	Strathcarron, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Harvington, L.	Strathcona and Mount Royal,
Henley, L.	L.
Hesketh, L. [Teller.]	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Hives, L.	[Teller.]
Hood, V.	Strathspey, L.
Hooper, B.	Sudeley, L.
Hunter of Newington, L.	Terrington, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Teviot, L.
Ironside, L.	Teynham, L.
Jeffreys, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Thorneycroft, L.
Joseph, L.	Trumpington, B.
Killearn, L.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Kimball, L.	Vivian, L.
Kinloss, Ly.	Waddington, L.
Knollys, V.	Wade of Chorlton, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Wharton, B.
Lloyd of Hampstead, L.	Wise, L.
Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.	Young, B.
McAlpine of West Green, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.26 p.m.

Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 11, after ("corporate") insert ("with a regional structure as determined by the body corporate in consultation with persons and organisations it considers appropriate").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 134. The amendments would achieve two purposes. The regional structure of the funding councils is mentioned only in the schedule. If brought into the main body of the Bill the structure would have greater emphasis which we believe is highly appropriate, given that a great deal of the real work of the funding councils will have to be undertaken at that level. There are, after all, over 500 colleges. It will be impossible to determine their funding and the structure of their work entirely from the centre. The amendments seek to give the councils a greater say over their own affairs which would enhance their status and effectiveness.

The debate in Committee indicated that the delineation of the regions will be a rather complex and sensitive exercise and one to which the councils themselves ought to be able to make a contribution. The proposed amendments therefore allow the funding councils to make the decisions about the regional structure rather than having them laid down in the statute.

Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the Education Reform Act 1988, and in particular Schedule 8, paragraph 9, gives the Universities Funding Council the power to establish committees for any purpose. The UFC has been making use of that power to establish regional committees. Therefore the amendments give the further education funding councils similar powers to those of the Universities Funding Council.

I anticipate the objection that the Government may put forward that the regional structure is of such significance that it cannot be left to the councils. However, if it is of such significance it surely merits mention in the body of the Bill and fuller treatment in the schedule so that its significance can be properly appreciated by Parliament.

Secondly, the proposed requirement to be placed upon the councils to consult about the regional structure obviously gives the Secretary of State a strong voice in the process. If his proposals for the regions are at all sensible and appropriate, then there must surely be a good chance that the councils—all of whose members will be appointed by the Secretary of State—will be persuaded to adopt them. So there is no need for him to be worried that proposals which are highly unacceptable to him will be put forward by the councils. It is unclear why he would want more powers rather than giving the councils more control over this aspect of the new structure.

We must avoid a regional structure designed by officials and imposed upon the system without a proper examination of its merits. Above all, it is the funding councils that will have to work the system. Surely they, in consultation with the Secretary of state, should devise a system in which they believe and which is workable. I beg to move.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I support the amendment to which my name is attached. I give also the support of these Benches. I reiterate what the noble Baroness said: if the councils have to work through a regional structure they should at least have a strong, if not dominant, voice in how it is set up. The Secretary of State will be involved virtually from the word go because of the consultations. Surely the funding councils should construct the regional levels because they will then be able to have an influence on the problems with which they will be dealing.

Lord Renton

My Lords, from the clear exposition given by the noble Baroness, it seems that the short point here is whether the regional structure, which we all agree must exist, shall be laid down by the Secretary of State, as the Bill says, or by the funding councils, as she proposes. We have regional structures for various purposes. Admittedly, under the 1988 Act that was not done by the Secretary of State but in other ways provided by the Act. I should have thought that we want a bit of consistency and cohesion with regional structures.

If we are to have specialists in each subject establishing their own regional structures, we may well find that there is not that cohesion which might be an advantage. If we are to have some such consistency, surely it would be better if it were laid down at the centre, the Secretary of State having had the opportunity of consulting Cabinet colleagues who may be responsible for other regional structures. Perhaps I may say in passing—I hope that it is not irrelevant—that in local government and other matters there may be a tendency in future, whichever party is in power, towards regional structures.

I remember when there was virtually no regional structure for Wales. That, thank goodness, came in. Although I am sure that the noble Baroness has, with great sincerity, done a service to your Lordships' House by putting forward her view—it is a view worth considering—on balance, this is the type of matter which is best kept under the control of central government.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, we had a considerable discussion in Committee on this subject. It was finally left that the council's regional structure should not be specified in legislation. The amendments do something different. Their effect would be to give the funding council, rather than the Secretary of State, responsibility for determining the regional structure and therefore in England the regional committees. In the case of the first amendment, the council in reaching its decisions would also be required to consult such persons and organisations as it considered appropriate.

I unhesitatingly reaffirm the importance the Government attach to the regional structure of the council and to the role of the regional committees. Those committees will be the council's main source of advise on local needs. Their members will be appointed by the Secretary of State in recognition of the important role that they will be expected to play.

Against that background, it is reasonable that my right honourable friend should wish to retain the responsibility to determine the regional structure and the option of altering the size and number of regions to suit the future needs of the sector. A point I endeavoured to make in Committee is that there are changes in population and therefore in further education provision. The power which exists in the schedule to alter the size and number of regions might be necessary in the future. The noble Baroness sought to pre-empt me by saying that the Government might say that the regional structure is of such great significance that decisions on it should be in the hands of the Secretary of State. I have referred to the importance we attach to the regional structure and the regional committees, and I do not want to add to that.

The Secretary of State is anxious to ensure that the regional structure is put in place as soon as possible and for that reason too he wishes to retain responsibility for decisions on what the structure should be. It is in that context that we are reluctant to hand over the strategic decision on the regional structure to the funding council, which is not yet established. It will have to take off from a standing start. I can only add that my right honourable friend will of course take account of the views of interested bodies. He is bound to do that, and I give an undertaking that that is his intention.

There is not a great deal between us on this point, although I disagree with the amendment. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, we agree that a regional structure, in the context of the Bill, is necessary. The noble Baroness said that the structure should be decided by the funding council itself. For the Government, I say that the Secretary of State should decide. I stick to that view. The whole regional overview is better given from the department. For the future, it is better to have that overview if it is necessary to make changes to the structure. It is on those grounds that I disagree with the amendment.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I accept that there is not an enormous amount between us. It is a matter of judgment as to what is the best way of determining the regional structure. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that there is a case for setting this down from the centre. The funding councils are central bodies. If they were to be given these powers they would be setting down something from the centre. It is the funding councils which will have to work the system. That is why it seemed to us on this side of the House more appropriate that they should determine their own regional structures. There is a strong case for devolving such decisions in any system of government, but of course in consultation with the Secretary of State.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving the assurance that the Government and the Secretary of State will take into account the views of all organisations and bodies with an interest in this matter. In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blackstonemoved Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 12, after ("exercise") insert ("in consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to them to be concerned").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the arguments in favour of a requirement to consult LEAs were covered at some length in Committee; but I regret to say we did not get as far as some of us would have liked with respect to the Government's response on the question. In the course of his reply in Committee, among other things the Minister said: The short answer is that under the Bill they"— the LEAs— do not have a role for providing further education of the kind that will be funded by the new funding councils. They will continue to have an important role but not in Schedule 2 course funding".—[Official Report, 9/12/91; col. 490.]

I regret to say that that is factually incorrect. While under the Bill local education authorities no longer have the duty to secure courses of the kind listed in Schedule 2, they still retain the power to provide them. The council will not have a monopoly of this kind of work, so the need for coherence and for careful co-ordination is still there. It is surely hard to deny that there is a close relationship in practice between work falling inside and outside Schedule 2 provision.

Another problem in the Minister's reply was the lack of differentiation he made between the request for consultation and requests for stronger forms of LEA involvement. It is perhaps conceivable that the latter—in other words stronger forms of LEA involvement—might have fettered the council's discretion or confused the locus of accountability. However, that surely cannot be true of mere consultation.

The Government have included duties to consult in countless pieces of legislation covering a wide variety of aspects of national life for the simple reason that it ensures that those who take decisions are more likely to have in front of them the relevant and necessary information. Why has a statutory duty to consult suddenly become a problem as regards this Bill? Perhaps the Minister can say whether this signals some shift in policy which will be applied to other areas.

A further area of difficulty concerns the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that while he expected there to be no lack of opportunity to co-operate with LEAs, the amendment would be a quantum leap beyond that. We believe that is incorrect. The reverse is more likely to be true. It is possible to consult, in other words to invite views, without that leading to co-operation. However, it is not possible to co-operate without consultation having first occurred. If the Government expect co-operation to occur, this makes it even more perverse to resist the bare minimum of formal communication which is all that is implied by a statutory duty to consult.

The Minister also claimed that direct consultation between the national body and individual LEAs was self-evidently impractical because of the number of LEAs and the multiplicity of their funding arrangements. In the education service direct consultation with individual LEAs is conducted by the Government many times every year on a whole range of issues. It would be extraordinary if that were not the case. Does this provision signal another general change in government policy whereby that activity will now come to an end? The Minister's comment also seemed to ignore the role of the local authority associations. The proposed amendments take account of the problems of a national body consulting with all LEAs by referring to local authority associations at national level as being the appropriate bodies and allowing the funding councils to decide which LEAs they consider appropriate to consult at local level. I beg to move.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I support these amendments. Once again we are simply asking that those directly involved in this matter should consult those involved at another level. We are not asking for any great change to be made to the overall thrust of the Bill. We are merely asking for consultation. We should all wish to ensure that consultation occurs. Such a provision would not affect the Bill in any way. I see no reason why consultation should not occur. The functioning of the Bill would be greatly improved if consultation were to take place.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, as the noble Baroness has clearly explained, these amendments would require the Further Education Funding Council for England to exercise all of its functions in consultation with such local authority associations as appeared to it to be concerned. The amendments would also require the funding councils for England and Wales to exercise their principal duties to secure the provision of education in consultation with such local education authorities as they considered appropriate. The amendments are very similar to ones which the noble Baroness tabled in Committee and which were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Peston.

I should apologise for the fact that I related various inaccuracies to the Chamber in Committee. On that ground the noble Baroness has felt it right to re-table the amendment despite the fact that a vote was taken on it and the matter was therefore decided at that stage of the Bill. I repeat, however, that the Government consider that it would unnecessarily constrain the funding councils if, by statute, they were required to consult local education authorities about everything they did.

The amendment the Government have the greatest difficulty with is Amendment No. 3, which has the effect I have just described. I say that as it is self-evident that the funding councils and the regional committees of the funding council for England will need to talk to local authorities regularly if they are to do their job properly, particularly in respect to Clauses 2 and 3. As my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out in Committee on 9th December, there is absolutely nothing to prevent local authorities making their views known, publicly or otherwise. I accept that I have been inaccurate in not talking about the power of local authorities in matters covered by Clauses 2 and 3. The funding councils need to keep their eyes open as regards what is being done by local education authorities. One has only to look at Clause 2 to appreciate that. Clause 2(6) lays a duty upon a funding council to have regard, to any education to which subsection (1) above applies provided by schools maintained by local education authorities, grant-maintained schools, special schools not maintained by local education authorities, city technology colleges or city colleges for the technology of the arts". Exactly the same remit is laid upon the shoulders of a funding council in Clause 3(5). I accept absolutely that in providing education under Clauses 2 and 3 then will have to be a perfectly sensible requirement for co-operation and communication between the parties concerned. For the reasons I have given, I repeat that the Government do not like these amendments. However, as I have said, we are well aware that the success of our proposals will depend upon successful co-operation.

I pin my case upon the first amendment of the group. I simply do not believe it is appropriate to enshrine in statute a formal consultation process as regards all the functions of the funding councils. That would tie up the funding councils in red tape and would not be in the interests of making the new arrangements work well.

The noble Baroness looks perplexed. I was going to say that I hoped to have dispelled any idea on the Benches opposite that the Government, or I, are in some way opposed to talking to local education authorities on these matters. It is just the bureaucratic nature of the first amendment in the group that I do not like.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I looked a little perplexed as there are countless pieces of legislation that enshrine in statute duties to consult as regards the functions of a whole range of national bodies. Therefore, I am a little puzz[...]ed as to why it should be thought inappropriate in this case, particularly given the Government's conviction that it is important that there should be close co-operation between local education authorities and the funding councils. So much of what each side of the duopoly does will be a matter of balancing different kinds of provision and ensuring that there is not duplication. If there were no such co-operation there would be something of a mess and there could be chaos in some places. As I said in moving the amendment, consultation is surely needed in order to secure co-operation. Therefore I am a little disappointed by the Minister's reply.

I should also like to comment on one further point. Although the Minister is right in pointing to Clause 2(6) and Clause 3(5), to ask the funding council to have regard to the education provided in various other types of institution is not the same as asking it to consult those institutions. It is quite different. Although it has some relevance to the amendments I do not believe that those subsections satisfy the intention behind my amendment.

However, we have already had a long debate on the subject in Committee and the Minister has reminded us that we have already divided on the matter. I regret that I am unable to persuade the Government to be more responsive but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Pestonmoved Amendment No. 4: Page 1, line 16, at end insert: ("to undertake the funding of further education in England and Wales as specified in this Part, and nothing in this Part shall relate to the provision of full-time education suitable for the requirements of persons over compulsory school age who have not attained the age of nineteen years.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 17, 20, 22, 23 and 26, which are purely technical and consequential on Amendment No. 4 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.

I have some difficulty with the matter because, as often happens to me in your Lordships' House, I have begun to understand the legislation I am dealing with only towards the end of the legislative process. It may be that when the Minister replies he will be able to educate me and tell me that I still do not understand this aspect of the Bill, but I shall do the best I can.

First, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 2(1), which defines the duty of each of the funding councils in relation to education for 16 to 19 year-olds. The subsection states, as strongly as possible, that: It shall be the duty of each council to secure the provision for the population of their area of … full-time education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age who have not attained the age of nineteen years". That refers to the whole of the group of 16 to 19 year-olds.

Then one comes to Clause 2(2). I do not understand why that is there. One of my questions to the noble Lord is what Clause 2(2) adds to Clause 2(1). Subsection (2) states that: That duty extends to all persons among that population".

Having defined it as applying to all persons I do not see how subsection (2) can then extend that duty to all persons. It may be that lawyers like to include an additional sentence for a purpose which I do not understand, but as a matter of formal logic Clause 2(2) adds nothing to Clause 2(1).

My main point is that the funding council has a duty in respect of the whole of that population of 16 to 19 year-olds. Turning to page 8, Clause 10(2), referring to local education authorities, states that they: shall have the power to secure the provision for their area of full-time education", suitable to the same age group. If the further education councils have that duty, it is not clear why that power for the local education authorities has been included. What is it doing there?

Then I come to a further matter. Clause 11 amends Section 41 of the Education Act 1944. It states that we should now substitute the following statement: It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure the provision for their area of adequate facilities for further education". Since the 16 to 19 year-old age group falls within that provision there seem to be two sets of duties, which conflict. I find it all extremely puzzling.

That leads me to the substantive matter, having asked my questions in the hope of clarification. I agree that we have been over the matter before. It is only because I am more worried about it now than I was earlier that I return to it. The substantive matter is that the 16 to 19 year-old age group—and for the moment I shall concentrate on those who are in full-time education—can attend full-time education in three places. They can be in full-time education in a further education college, as has been defined hitherto. They can be in full-time education in a sixth form college, which will be in the FE sector once the Bill is passed into legislation, when such sixth-form colleges will come under the aegis of the funding councils rather than the local authorities. Or they can be in school sixth forms.

As I understand it—and this is another problem in relation to my understanding of the Bill—under the definition in Clause 14, members of that 16 to 19 year-old age group who attend either a sixth form college or an FE college will be deemed to be engaged in further education. However, if I understand the matter correctly (and notice all the conditional statements, and I am looking forward to the Minister saying that I do not understand the matter) 16 to 19 year-olds in that same age group who are in the sixth form will be deemed to be receiving school education. As a matter of pure logic I am puzzled as to why they are deemed to be at school and receiving school education when they take a particular course at school but in the FE sector when they follow exactly the same course at an FE college. I should have thought that we could have written the legislation rather better. I raise that point in order to make sure that I understand what is happening.

What really concerns me is the point that was raised by a number of noble Lords, including noble Lords on the Government side of the House, as to whether ultimately that means the end of school sixth forms. I do not mean that the Bill abolishes school sixth forms. I mean that, given the nature of the duties and responsibilities, bearing in mind the question of finance and taking a slightly longer view, it is questionable whether a local education authority, having lost the jewels of the FE colleges and sixth form colleges, will regard it as desirable to give much priority to the preservation of school sixth forms.

That point was raised and it is the one to which I return this afternoon. I return to it in a form which I know the Government will find unattractive because, essentially, I am saying that there is another solution to the problem, which is to leave the matter more strongly within the local authorities. If local authorities have greater responsibility for that age group, they will not have any incentive to give up school sixth forms because they will be part of the same planned package. That is why I draw the matter to your Lordships' attention, for the last time.

Of course, as always, I accept the bona fides of the Government's intentions. I do not for a moment suggest that there is a hidden agenda and that the Government want to abolish school sixth forms. I cannot believe that this Government would want to do so or that there could be a hidden agenda. However, we know enough about the way the world works to be aware that one can bring forces into play so that, even if it were not the intention to abolish school sixth forms, that would be the ultimate result.

I do not apologise for repeating a point which I have made to your Lordships before. We know that school sixth forms are more expensive. There are often very good reasons why that should be so. Therefore, given the trend of this Bill, one of the forces at work will be that of finance, which will cause sixth forms to go out of existence. This is my last attempt to persuade the Government at least to consider that they might be wrong in moving this far from the local authorities. I accept that the Government are not doing so in order to abolish the poll tax but because they consider it educationally desirable. They may end up with what the great Professor Popper called the unforeseen consequences of actions, but in this case, as I am drawing them to your Lordships' attention, they will be the foreseen consequences of actions. As a result of possibly quite sensible rationalisations, we shall achieve an outcome which, quite independent of politics, many noble Lords would regard as unattractive. I beg to move.

5 p.m.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, I want briefly but decidedly to support the amendment. We are all agreed that the education of 16 to 18 year-olds is a seriously neglected area and a priority in getting our education system right. It is therefore plainly important that we make the best possible provision that we can.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, from the initiation of the Bill we on these Benches have not understood why it seemed appropriate to the Government to take sixth form education in any form out of the hands of local authorities. Sixth form colleges undoubtedly have a valuable part to play. There are no doubt many youngsters, but by no means all, who wish to leave school and go to what they regard as the more adult environment of a sixth form college. We go along with the Government on that, although I have a marked preference for a tertiary college rather than a sixth form college as such. But that is another issue.

That does not mean that the sixth form college must be taken out of the control of the local authority. If we say that this is the priority education group—I think that the House is agreed on that—we must get the administration, handling and finance of it absolutely right. Does it make sense that the local authority is responsible for sixth forms in schools but not for sixth form colleges? That is the difficulty as I see it. I therefore hope that the Government will reconsider the matter.

I support what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said. There is a strong case for sixth forms in schools. If I were teaching in secondary education, I would want to have a sixth form. I fear that the quality of teaching that we must have throughout schools could be badly affected if there were not sixth forms in schools. I do not see people who are keen on their subject being willing to teach in schools if they have no sixth forms. The teaching throughout the school will be damaged if there are not the people with the scholarly interest—an old-fashioned word but very important in connection with education—teaching throughout the school. You will not attract them if they do not have the stimulus and interest of the sixth form.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn

My Lords, there is much common ground in the House on this matter. I am sure that we all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that sixth form colleges should continue to be as outstandingly successful as they have been. I am sure that we also agree with the point emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston; namely, that we are anxious to see sixth forms in schools continue to flourish. However, I believe that the noble Lord is correct in saying that many people on this side of the House will find the amendment unattractive. It is unattractive because it would radically and profoundly transform the entire structure of the Bill to the extent that, had it not been for the constructive manner in which the noble Lord put his observations, one would be tempted to regard it as a wrecking amendment. It would certainly be a demolition amendment because it would completely transform the further education sector.

The noble Lord had difficulty with the logic that those who follow a course at school are deemed to be at school and those who follow a course in a sixth form college within the further education sector are deemed to be undergoing further education. I do not find the same difficulty with that concept. Let us assume that many pupils or students between the years of 16 and 18 will be in the further education sector but that the majority will remain at the school in the sixth form. In that case, it would clearly be a strange anomaly to say that persons who are in a given school until the age of 16 and then continue at that school until the age of 18 have changed the area in which they receive their education. Likewise, it would be an anomaly to modify the funding in that sense.

The interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is that, if the sixth form colleges are funded by the further education sector and school sixth forms are funded by local authorities, as they are now, there might be a tendency towards attrition in the sixth forms of those schools. However, I am not sure why that should arise. I agree with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that it would be most unfortunate if that were so. The matters was discussed in considerable detail in Committee in December on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. The noble Baroness put her name to that amendment and spoke to it. It was substantively the same issue: where should sixth form colleges be within the organisation? It was emphasised that many pupils or students prefer to remain in school in the structured environment that they know. However, there are other pupils or students who begin to become dissident towards sixth-form years and prefer to up sticks and go to a new environment which is much more suited to them.

There are perhaps other distinctions between school sixth forms and sixth form colleges, but there is a real distinction and choice being exercised. It seems perfectly appropriate that pupils or students, however we define them, should be able to decide for themselves at the age of 16 whether they intend to remain in the structured environment of a school sixth form and thereby be pupils in the school sector, or whether they elect to transfer to a sixth form college and be students in the further education sector. I see no difficulty with that.

Another interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was that if local education authorities did not have the jewels of the sixth form colleges under their organisational purview, they might lose heart as regards the sixth forms in their schools. I do not see why that should be. If I felt that to be so, I would be anxious. I am sure that the noble Lord is right to raise the matter. If you are the headmaster or headmistress of a successful school with a significant sixth form, I am sure that it is a source of pride and that you wish it to be so. You also wish pupils to remain in the school throughout the sixth form. If they choose to do so, I assume that the mechanism to be used is one of enrolment. If the pupils remained enrolled for the sixth form of the school, there would be an obligation on the local education authority to continue to fund the sixth form. If pupils or students elect to go to a sixth form college, they move to the further education sector funded through the further education funding council. I am anxious that there might be some attrition in sixth forms— that would be a serious matter—but I see no reason why there should be. To accept the amendment would be to demolish much of the Bill. I imagine that for that reason many noble Lords on this side of the House will wish to oppose it.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I have no difficulty at all with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that it should be possible for people at the age of 16 to chose whether they wish to remain in the sixth form of their own school or go to a sixth form college so long as we look at the matter from a purely educational point of view. However, when we start to look at it from an administrative point of view and particularly form the point of view of cost, however desirable it is—and I agree that it is desirable—it becomes a little more difficult because, from the point of view of those who provide education for 16 to 19 year-olds, there is inevitably a degree of alternativity between providing a school sixth form and providing a sixth form college. Obviously it will be appropriate to provide a sixth form college where most individual schools can support only a very small sixth form of perhaps three or four people. But where there is a large sixth form or a lively one, it may be appropriate to let it continue. If the noble Lord is not writing a blank cheque, he risks writing a double one and bringing in a great deal more cost than is perhaps necessary.

That brings me to the nub of the amendment. In many areas provision of a sixth form in an individual school and provision of a sixth form college are alternatives. Because they are alternatives, the one affects the need for the other. Therefore, I believe that there is a strong case for the decision as to which of them should be provided—that is precisely the form in which the decision will usually come—to be taken by one single authority. The issue arose in the school attended by both my sons. There was a proposal to provide a sixth form college. The school reacted in precisely the way described by my noble friend Lady Seear. It was a matter of pride to the school to retain its sixth form. The argument of economies of scale was put about. There emerged a working compromise whereby a joint sixth form was put together between four closely neighbouring schools. That is precisely the kind of sensible political solution which, so far as I can see, could not be reached if the axe of this Bill were to fall between the two forms of provision.

The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, thought that the amendment could be seen as a wrecking amendment. I suggest that the Bill, by trying to put a division where there can in practice be no such division, has wrecked itself. In that rather nice 17th century phrase, the Bill is felo de se. I hope that passing the amendment may restore the Bill to life.

Lord Desai

My Lords, I wish to supplement the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. At present in Islington there is a sixth form centre. It took a long time to build up the centre which is independent of continuing provision within schools beyond 16. Putting together the centre was very important in order to deal with falling rolls in Islington's secondary schools and considerably improve Islington's very bad staying-on rate.

There is a distinction to be made between leaving school at 16 for either a sixth form college or a further education college. We may not perceive it but the students and their parents see the difference. There is a difference between a 16 to 19 sixth form college and a 16 to 96 further education college. It is very important that the three-way choice should be seen: continuing education in the sixth form of a school, a school consortium (as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, pointed out) and a 16 to 19 sixth form college. These arrangements could be dealt with at the local level. Then there may be a further education college, which is a different matter altogether.

We ought to be able to provide for a variety of institutions and not close down options, which will be the likely effect of the Bill if the amendment is not accepted.

5.15 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Guildford

My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this amendment but what has been said brings me to my feet. It comes back to one of the fundamental principles of the Bill. I am not happy with the amendment. It seems to me extremely close to being a wrecking amendment.

We come back to a vitally important issue on which I spoke at Committee stage and which still deeply troubles me. It is important to recognise the common ground. We all understand the importance of the 16 to 18 year-old age range and how provision for that age range must be improved. We all recognise the value of having further education colleges, sixth form colleges, tertiary colleges and sixth forms in schools. Variety of choice is important and should be retained. That is common ground among us.

We begin to divide over the issue of who should have responsibility for strategic planning. Here, matters of administrative responsibility and finance come into play. I accept entirely the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, who said that it was important that young people should have the option of going to whichever of those educational institutions met their individual needs. So far so good. But what happens when a local education authority comes under financial pressure and feels that it cannot, will not, or should not, continue to provide sixth form education in some schools and the FE funding council either begins to exert pressure to have more sixth form colleges or does not have money available? There is then the danger of being pushed into a position in which those essentially educational decisions are made on administrative and financial grounds.

A more fundamental question returns to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, raised so provocatively and importantly. At the end of the day, who takes the financial decision? That must be clear. Is it the FE funding council or the local education authority? Or are we to become lost in a terrible wrangle? We must be clear. It is a vital issue.

It is not only that issue that needs to be established and clarified. We must also be clear that the choice ought to be retained. To that extent we should keep under control, if I may put it that way, the financial and administrative pressures, in order to ensure that the educational issues are retained in the forefront of our minds.

Lord Renton

My Lords, the speeches that we have heard so far against the amendment have been so clear that I can be very brief. I am surprised by the amendment. I had always assumed that noble Lords opposite were just as keen as those on this side of the House to ensure that our education system should create the maximum opportunities and be as flexible as possible. Unless I have misread or misunderstood the amendment, it seems to me that bright young people whose compulsory school education is over but who, for some reason of their own or perhaps for family reasons, do not want to go to a sixth form college or into a sixth form at all but want some kind of specialist further education as soon as possible and avoid having to wait until the age of 19 could be deprived of that chance. For those reasons I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, there is no question but that this is a very serious amendment. Its purpose is to leave with local education authorities the duty to secure the provision of sufficient facilities for the full-time education of 16 to 18 year-olds, thus effectively preserving the existing statutory provision in relation to such education and going wholly against Clause 2 of the Bill.

However, there is more to the amendment than that. The duty to secure the provision of adequate facilities for part-time education for the same age group would still be transferred to the funding councils under Clause 3 of the Bill. The amendments would thus introduce a new and in the Government's view damaging dividing line between full-time and part-time education for 16 to 18 year-olds.

The main purpose of Part I of the Bill is to provide more and better education for 16 to 18 year-olds, and indeed for adults, and to ensure increased participation and higher levels of attainment by young people and throughout the population. We believe that those aims can most effectively be met by transferring the duty to secure provision of further education for those aged 16 to 18 from local education authorities to the new further education funding councils and by giving further education and indeed sixth form colleges an independence they have not had previously.

It seems a long time ago now, but perhaps I may just go back to the beginnings of the Bill. I recall making the point at Second Reading that this was a move widely welcomed among those involved in running the colleges. I know that there are different views about the desirability of what is proposed so far as it affects sixth form colleges—the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was absolutely right to raise the point —but the Association of Principals of Sixth Form Colleges is in favour of the move. The reason that those who run colleges are in favour of the move is that it will give them much greater flexibility to manage their own affairs. We believe that the new funding methodology will give them a powerful incentive to expand participation.

The amendments would prevent that happening. They would leave with the local education authorities the duty to provide for further full-time education for 16 to 18 year-olds and there would be no real independence, as is planned in the Bill, for the further education colleges.

The Bill is also designed to eradicate what we see as a damaging dividing line between academic and vocational education. If the amendments were made, full-time education for 16 to 18 year-olds, which is predominantly of an academic nature, would be the responsibility of the local authorities and part-time education for the same group—which is largely, although not wholly, vocational—would fall to the further education funding councils. We believe that that would be a damaging split. I observe noble Lords opposite shaking their heads. I realise that the position is not as black and white as that, but there is a great deal of truth in what I said.

Let us go back to first principles. One of the reasons that has motivated the Government to bring the Bill forward is to try to eliminate the divide between academic and vocational education. It is a reasonable argument that one of the faults that has dogged our attitudes to education in this country over the past 45 years has been—dare I say it? —looking on vocational education as in some way second class compared with academic education. It is because of the desire to ensure that there is no damaging dividing line between academic and vocational education that the Bill has been brought forward.

In addition, your Lordships have listened carefully to the argument that there may be a danger of erosion of full-time education of 16 to 18 year-olds in local authority sixth forms in schools. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear his intention that the sixth forms in good schools should continue to thrive. In discharging their duty, the funding councils will be required to have regard to full-time education provided for 16 to 18 year-olds in institutions that they will not fund. That appears in Clause 2(6). It is important that it is put that way round: that the funding councils have to have regard for what is being provided in other institutions. That will include sixth forms in schools. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said that that is not quite the end of the argument. There is also the question of who is to take the decisions for strategic changes, in particular with regard to the sixth form sector. I speak now without a brief. With regard to the case that the right reverend Prelate put forward, there might be pressure put on a sixth form college to close and some alternative provision in the further education sector to open. Who will take the final decision? That factor is surely embedded in the law as we have it. The closure procedures would need to be gone through and the final decision would need to be taken by the Secretary of State.

On the desirability of the amendment, the Government believe that the duty to secure the provision of full-time education for young people should lie with the funding councils. Perhaps I may answer the noble Lord's technical points. That is why Clause 10(2) makes it clear that local education authorities still have the power to provide sixth forms for education in schools but Clause 11 prevents both LEAs and the councils from being under a duty to secure the provision of the same type of education. If the councils have the duty under Clause 2(1) or Clause 3(1) then the local education authorities cannot also have a duty. But they have a power.

In order exhaustively to clear up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, raised, Clause 2(2) makes it clear that the duty under Clause 2(1) does not extend to persons aged 19 years or over.

I apologise for being rather long-winded in answering. However, it is an important amendment. Before I sit down perhaps I may remind noble Lords of what I believe is damaging. I have used the word and I shall use it again. If the amendment were accepted, we should have an artificial divide—almost a further education binary line—between the academic and vocational. I believe that the Bill will go a long way towards eliminating that. I do not believe that such a divide would be right.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and I thank all other noble Lords who have taken the trouble to debate the amendment. I do not see it as a wrecking amendment. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that in this Chamber we do not divide on Second Reading. If we wish to argue that something basic is wrong with the Bill we have to proceed some way into the Bill in order to damage it without wrecking it, if I may put it that way. The amendment changes the Bill significantly. However, if we are unable ever to seek to change a Bill significantly because we are accused of putting down wrecking amendments, I do not see why we bother with deliberations in your Lordships' House. But I do not believe that it is a wrecking amendment.

Noble Lords will appreciate that I did not put the amendment down in order to divide the House on the matter. I have no intention of doing so. I put it down because I wanted to clarify certain differences between us which I should like to take two or three minutes to emphasise.

I agree entirely with the Minister that the fundamental aim is the education of 16 to 19 year-olds. The councils are the means. My amendment is not a wrecking amendment; my argument is that there are better means. The Government do not agree with me, but it seems reasonable to place my view on record that we agree entirely with the aims but that there are alternative means which we ought to consider.

I accept the logical point that the Minister makes: that in the Bill we have a distinction between schools for 16 to 19 year-olds and an FE sector. The means that I suggest would produce a different distinction between full and part-time education. I accept logically that one will have an artificial distinction whatever one does. I seek to argue as cogently as I can that one would still have a part-time sector in FE and that my method is more sensible. I fully accept that the Government are entitled to hold a different view. But I do not regard the amendment as wrecking. I am trying to clarify the nature of the decision that we are taking.

I take strong issue with the Government on two matters. The distinction between full and part time is not the distinction between academic and vocational; a fortiori it ought not to be the distinction. I believe that the Government mislead if they argue that the distinction between full and part-time education relates to vocational versus academic. I stand second to no one in my desire to see a strong vocational element in all our education, including higher education. I have no difficulty with that. I believe that the Government are mistaken if that is the way they wish to argue.

My second point relates to diversity of choice, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and others. The danger is that we shall end up with less diversity and less choice. I am trying to point out the danger that the school sixth forms will disappear. As I understand it, there is no obligation on the part of local authorities to provide sixth forms. The Secretary of State cannot make a local authority have a sixth form. Therefore the danger must be one way: that those sixth forms will go. I do not express that as a certainty because there are no certainties. I should like to believe that I am mistaken. However, if the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, the danger is that school sixth forms would go on financial grounds, if on no other.

I have had my day on this amendment. I assure noble Lords that I shall not come back to the matter again within this Bill. We have heard the issues. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No. 5:

Page 1, line 23, leave out from ("State") to ("persons") in line 25 and insert:

("(a) shall have regard to the desirability of including").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is agreed that Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 133 will be taken with this amendment.

The amendments would require the Secretary of State, in making appointments to a further education funding council, to have regard to the desirability of including persons who were currently engaged in the provision of further education or in carrying responsibility for such provision.

A number of points were made in Committee about the desirability of ensuring that practitioners in further education were considered for membership of the funding councils. We have considered the issue carefully and your Lordships' arguments have prevailed. Hence the reference in the amendment to, being currently engaged in the provision of further education as a desirable attribute for membership of a funding council.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has tabled amendments which cover the same ground as the amendment I am moving. Her Amendments Nos. 6 and 11 would require my right honourable friend in making appointments to a further education funding council to have regard to the desirability of including members who have experience or have shown a capacity in the provision of further education. Her Amendments Nos. 7 and 12 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of including members who had acquired educational expertise by virtue of their membership of a local education authority.

I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will agree that in our reference to the desirability of including on the council persons who are currently engaged in the provision of further education the Government have fully recognised the points made in Committee. We have sought to achieve her aim slightly more effectively than, on this occasion, have her amendments. The great majority of members of local education authorities will fall squarely into the category of those who have experience of the provision of education or who have experience of industrial, commercial or financial matters. Many, indeed most, will probably fall into more than one of those categories or will be a member of one of the professions. If a member of a local education authority did not fall into one of those categories it would not be desirable to select such a person statutorily for appointment to a funding council.

In moving the government amendments I hope that the noble Baroness will consider that I have gone a long way in seeking to meet the points made. I beg to move.

5.30 p.m.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I am pleased that the Government have recognised the points that were made by Members on this side of the Committee and have accepted some of our arguments, including the desirability that the funding councils should include members with knowledge and experience not only of education generally but of further education specifically. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward an amendment.

There is one aspect of the Government's amendments which causes me a little anxiety and in that respect I believe that the amendments tabled in my name are preferable. The amendments tabled by the Government use the phrases "currently engaged" and "carrying responsibility". They would restrict the Secretary of State's choice to people working in the sector. When the Committee dealt with the higher education funding councils I tabled an amendment referring to people who were currently engaged in higher education. At that time the Minister reminded me that it could exclude people who had retired, perhaps recently, but who had a great deal of relevant experience. However, they could not be included in the provision because of the use of the term "currently engaged".

Therefore, although it is desirable that the knowledge and experience of members of the funding council should be up to date, many of the individuals currently engaged in the provision of further education will be personally involved in a particular institution. As a result, some questions might be raised about their independence. The more general wording in Amendment No. 11 is therefore to be preferred. It can bring in people outside a particular institution because they no longer work in the sector; for example, retired HMIs with considerable experience of inspecting further education colleges, retired local authority officials or ex-chairmen of education committees.

I turn to the Minister's comments about local education authorities and to the amendments that refer specifically to the inclusion of a person with experience as a member of a local education authority. As LEAs currently have the responsibility for providing further education, and will continue to have some responsibility for future provision, the experience of an LEA would be particularly valuable for the funding council. For that reason we felt it right to table an additional amendment which makes specific reference to the inclusion of a person with experience as a member of a local education authority. I hope that in reply the Minister will respond to my slight worry about the wording of his amendments compared with those tabled in my name.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly for the concession embodied in Amendment No. 10. I welcome it unreservedly. On the other hand, on behalf of my alter ego whose name appears on the Marshalled List, I wish to say a few words about Amendment No. 7 relating to a representative of a local education authority. Since the debate in respect of Amendment No. 4 relating to sixth forms the provision has become more necessary.

I listened with care to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. I believe that if we are splitting the provision for school sixth forms and the provision for sixth form colleges we are creating a need for consultation between the funding council and local education authorities, which is a great deal more acute than before. For that reason Amendment No. 7 is not trifling and I hope that the Minister will be prepared to think again about it.

Baroness David

My Lords, Amendments Nos. 9, 14 and 133 are tabled in my name. I am trying to achieve a slightly different aim from that which I had in Committee in order to meet the Minister's anxiety. I then suggested that a member of the funding council should be a person with experience of the type of education listed in Schedule 2. The Minister appeared to be worried that the provision would exclude many other people. He said that it would reduce the breadth of education experience on the funding councils by excluding any type of education not listed.

On this occasion I have framed my amendments to insert the words: including education of the types listed in Schedule 2". That would not exclude those with educational experience outside those particular courses.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 14 are to Clause 1 and Amendment No. 133 is to Schedule 1, dealing with the make-up of the committees set up by the funding councils. I believe that my amendments have a point to make. I agree that the Minister has gone a considerable way towards meeting the anxieties expressed, but I am pleased with my amendments. Perhaps he would like to comment upon them.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships including the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for saying that they are pleased that the government amendments have been brought forward. However, the noble Baroness made the point that we may be excluding people who have retired such as, for example, a recently retired member of Her Majesty's Inspectorate or a teacher. That point is covered by the wording in Clause 1, which refers to those who "have experience of" the provision of education, and so on.

The noble Baroness made the point also that I had used the argument previously, relying on a Latin tag, which comes from my noble friend Lord Renton, that if you include one, you exclude the rest. The rather tentative, but necessarily tentative, wording of Amendment No. 10 probably gets us out of that difficulty. Amendment No. 10 states that, in making appointments to the council, the Secretary of State: shall have regard to the desirability of their being currently engaged in the provision of further education or in carrying responsibility for such provision". It will be a duty to have regard to that desirability when making appointments of that kind. I hope that I have not fallen foul of the invariable rule which my noble friend Lord Renton has often quoted helpfully to me in our debates.

That leaves the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David. This matter was discussed within the department as regards the amendments which the noble Baroness, Lady David, brought forward in Committee. Their aim was to bring those involved in Schedule 2 courses into the reckoning as desirable candidates for membership of the funding councils. I hope that we have gone more widely than the noble Baroness suggested. We have included those who are involved in Schedule 2 courses because the reference to education and, indeed, those who are currently involved in providing further education could, many times over, include those who are involved in Schedule 2 courses. I realise that saying that means that we do not specifically include the point raised by the noble Baroness, but that is because it is covered by the Bill as drafted and by the government amendments which we now propose.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]

Lord Pestonmoved Amendment No. 8:

Page 1, line 26, after ("education") insert ("(including experience as a member of a Training and Enterprise Council)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 13. If I understand government Amendment No. 10 correctly, it makes more explicit what the Minister and other noble Lords have said is desirable; that is, it will make clear the desirability of appointing as members of a training and enterprise council persons who have experience.

I am not entirely certain about that because I do not know whether members of a training and enterprise council can be said to be engaged in the provision of further education. I am not certain that those people have a responsibility for such provision although they are closely connected with it.

I have accepted before and I still accept fully the Government's view that it is highly likely that members of training and enterprise councils will be appointed to the councils. I wish to make that explicit in order to emphasise the important role of the TECs. I should like to see them mentioned in this part of the Bill more to underline their importance than for any other reason. As I say, I do not doubt that such people will be appointed to the councils. That is why I press the point now; I seek a sign of the Government's earnestness in this regard. That is why I propose the two amendments standing in my name. I beg to move.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the noble Lord divines my reaction correctly. I said that it will be desirable to have members of local education authorities as members of the new funding councils. That point is much the same as regards the TECs. Those who have experience of, or have shown capacity in the provision of, education, despite the cautionary words delivered by the noble Lord about that, or those who have experience of, or have shown capacity in, industrial, commercial or financial matters or the practice of any profession are almost certain to be members of training and enterprise councils. Most TEC members will fall into more than one of those slots. If that is not so, I question whether it is desirable to select such a member statutorily as being desirable for the funding councils. I do not mean that such a person would not be suitable but it is questionable whether, if he does not fall into those slots, he should be selected statutorily.

The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that, in addition to believing that the amendment of itself has merit, the purpose which lies behind it was to show confidence in the importance of the TECs in this context. I suggest gently that perhaps legislation is not the place in which to show that confidence. The noble Lord is quite right that we share his confidence in the TECs. The Government have made clear several times their view that local authorities and TECs will continue to play an important role in post-16 education. Indeed, we have already given a commitment in the education and training White Paper that the Secretary of State will invite two representatives of local TEC interests to sit on each regional committee. The success of the new sector will depend upon effective co-operation between LEAs, TECs and colleges and funding councils. I do not believe that to write this matter upon the face of the Bill as a message of confidence is the right course for the Government to take. I hope that the noble Lord will not think that I am being deliberately obstructive, because I do not intend to be so.

Lord Peston

My Lords, of course I do not regard the noble Lord as being obstructive. His answer came within about 1 per cent. of convincing me. Essentially, on matters of substance, there is nothing between us. I should prefer to see training and enterprise councils written on to the face of the Bill. However, I agree that it is a matter of taste and we do not need to fight about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]

Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No. 10:

Page 1, line 28, after ("education") insert ("and, in appointing such persons, he shall have regard to the desirability of their being currently engaged in the provision of further education or in carrying responsibility for such provision").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 not moved.]

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 1, line 28, after ("education") insert ("including the provision of further education for students with learning difficulties").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48A, 66, 130 and 154. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that there will be someone on the funding councils and quality assessment committees experienced in the provision of education for students with learning difficulties.

In Committee on 9th December I withdrew a bunch of amendments which had the same purpose because the Government felt that they referred to representatives, although that was not our intention. The current wording stems from a suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, at col. 546 of Hansard. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said that he had the same idea but needed to consult and consider. I hope therefore that the new amendments will find favour with him.

Amendment No. 48A to Clause 6 is unchanged from Committee stage as it does not concern membership but aims to safeguard the interests of students with learning difficulties by imposing on councils a duty to consult bodies with experience of their special needs before allocating grants, loans and so on.

In Committee the aim of this bunch of amendments received a great deal of support on all sides of the Chamber. The disability organisations see them as important; the RNIB is anxious that without them the planning of educational provision and subsequent progression into employment will not be adequate for the needs of students with learning difficulties. The Spastics Society believes that without the amendments present provision for students with learning difficulties will be weakened, which is something that the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, indicated at col. 544 the Government did not want.

The Spastics Society says that many disabled people and disability organisations have developed effective working relationships with their LEAs, often based on the slow build-up of trust and expertise on both sides. It is important that the new councils ensure not only that existing good practice is protected but also that the opportunity to develop good practice is not lost. The centralised nature of the councils may ensure that access to expertise is more consistent than at present. That would lead to a more effective use of resources, with money being spent in the most appropriate way, and ensuring the best possible provision for students with learning difficulties.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's response in regard to the amendments. I hope that he feels we have overcome his objections and that he will be able to accept them. I beg to move.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I rise merely to support the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). There are good exceptions to every rule and this is a justifiable exception to the rule to which my noble friend Lord Belstead referred a short while ago about not being selective in drafting. However, if we are to get the provisions fully and satisfactorily applied for people with learning difficulties, then the funding bodies need the advantage of the advice of people with experience in giving that specialised education. On this occasion therefore I wish to support the noble Baroness.

Baroness David

My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness and I should like to support it. It is a matter of providing somebody who can contribute expertise and understanding on these matters. If that appropriate expertise is not available within the membership of the funding councils, the awareness of the requirements of students with learning difficulties of all kinds will, at worst, be absent and at best be based indirectly on consultation. I hope therefore that the Minister will see his way to accepting the amendment.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I rise briefly to reiterate many of the opinions already stated. Those with special educational requirements need people who understand them to put their cases forward when it comes to funding and any other needs relating to the new councils. People often do not understand the problems involved, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said that he found difficulty following the situation. The area is complicated and there were many new facets introduced in discussions at Committee stage. That is a normal reaction for people who step into a pool which does not appear quite as deep as it is. People often find themselves sinking to the top of their boots and beyond when they step into this specific bit of water. I hope therefore that the amendments will be accepted.

6 p.m.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, these are the first of a number of amendments relating to students with disabilities. We debated the arrangements for these students extensively in Committee, when I undertook that the Government would consider further some of the points that were advanced. Before I turn to these amendments, I hope it will be helpful if I take a minute or two to outline the conclusions that the Government reached on those points in the light of the useful further discussions that I have been able to have with some of your Lordships who spoke about students with disabilities in our previous debates.

One issue that arose a number of times in our previous debates was the nature of the duty towards students with disabilities. Your Lordships will have seen on the Marshalled List government Amendment No. 36 that would, if your Lordships approve it, extend the duty on the further education funding councils in relation to students with disabilities. I hope that will be welcomed as showing that we listened to the anxieties expressed earlier.

A second point to which previous speakers attached importance was the availability of expertise on the education of students with disabilities to the new funding councils. Here the Government's intention is to make it a condition of grant that the funding councils should obtain such specialist advice where it is not available internally. That condition of grant will be applied to both the further education and the higher education funding councils. The powers to attach conditions to the grants paid to the funding councils are contained in Clauses 7 and 64. In previous debates some mistrust was expressed over the way those powers may be used: this illustrates the beneficial value of the power to attach conditions to the grant.

In our previous debates about students with disabilities, some questions were also raised about the assessment of their educational needs. Assessment is of course a matter of the greatest importance, and I made it clear that we did not dispute its value to both students and lecturers but that we doubted the wisdom of prescribing it on the face of the Bill. Our conclusion is that the importance of assessing students' educational needs should be reiterated in guidance issued to the new further education system and also the local education authorities to cover their continuing responsibility for some students with disabilities. That will ensure that assessment is given proper attention, without introducing undesirable inflexibility.

Another question that arose previously concerned the interpretation of the phrase "disproportionate expenditure" where students with disabilities are concerned. I believe that I satisfied your Lordships in the course of the debate on the meaning of the phrase. Our view is that for the purposes of legislation it is clear as it stands. However, we intend to issue guidance to the funding councils to establish that the prohibition on disproportionate expenditure is in no way intended to rule out provision which is necessarily expensive, such as that for students with disabilities.

Our previous debates also raised the question of transport for students with disabilities. Our view, which I believe is shared, is that the present law is adequate as it stands, but there may be a question over the enthusiasm with which the duties it contains are carried out. Our intention is to issue guidance to the local education authorities so as to ensure that there is no doubt as to the extent of the existing duties. As your Lordships know, the Bill ensures that the existing duties apply in the new further education sector: this is secured in Schedule 8. However, we noticed a gap in Schedule 8 as drafted in relation to students placed by the FEFCs in independent-sector colleges. Government Amendment No. 175 was tabled to ensure that LEAs' responsibility extends to placements made in the independent sector.

To summarise, for students with disabilities we are proposing two government amendments relating to the duty to secure placements in the independent sector and to transport. We are proposing to attach a condition to the funding councils' grant to ensure the availability of specialist knowledge about the education of those students. We are proposing to issue guidance on assessment of their educational needs, on the interpretation of "disproportionate expenditure" and on transport. In preparing guidance, we shall of course be glad to tap the knowledge of the bodies with special expertise in these areas. I can give more detail on each point as we debate later amendments.

In our forthcoming debates I expect to be pressed again to do more. There is a limit. I hope that the series of measures that I have outlined demonstrates that we do take seriously our responsibilities towards students with disabilities and that we have listened attentively to the points that have been made on their behalf. For all our sympathy for that group and for all our admiration of the body that advances its cause in your Lordships' House, as a Government we must also remember our responsibilities towards other groups. The resources at our disposal are not infinite. It is not just a matter of money. There is also no infinite supply of human resources nor of the time and energy of lecturers and other highly skilled staff. What we attempt to provide for any particular group must be kept in proportion so that the interests of other groups, equally deserving and perhaps equally vulnerable, are not harmed. There can be no question of making unlimited provision for students with disabilities at the expense of other groups. The measures that I have outlined will ensure that the interests of students with disabilities are appropriately secured in the new further education structures. At the same time they maintain the balance between their interests and those of other groups in our diverse society.

I thought it would be useful to set in context the comments that I shall now offer on this particular group of amendments by way of background. I hope that I have not spoken at too great length. Perhaps I may start with Amendments Nos. 15 and 130. These would require the Secretary of State, in making appointments to the further education and higher education funding councils, to have regard to the desirability of including persons who have experience or knowledge of the requirements of students with learning difficulties. The Government listened carefully to the arguments made when this issue was debated during the Committee stage of the Bill, and we undertook to consider the matter further. As I have said, we are not persuaded that specialist advice on the education of students with learning difficulties is best secured in the way proposed by these amendments; but we do accept that it is needed.

The Government share the concern that specialist advice on the requirements of students with learning difficulties should be available to the councils. They will be responsible for a broad range of educational provision, including provision for students with learning difficulties, and it is clearly important that these responsibilities should be reflected in the councils' membership. The Bill is designed to ensure that. It requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of appointing members of the councils from a range of backgrounds, including, of course, people with a background in education. No category of educational experience is excluded. We see no need to go further and refer to one particular area of educational experience.

Nevertheless, we appreciate the concern of the promoters of the amendments to see some further assurance that the councils will be in a position to take proper account of the requirements of students with learning difficulties. The Government intend to make it a condition of the Secretary of State's grant to the funding councils that they seek specialist advice on matters relating to provision for these students where specialist knowledge on these matters is not available to them internally. The same requirement will apply both to the further education and to the higher education funding councils. The effect will be the same as that sought by noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendments, though by a different route.

The councils' decisions as they discharge their responsibilities will be informed by specialist knowledge of the education of students with disabilities. Moreover, that effect is guaranteed by the Government's approach. That would not be the case with the proposed amendments. They would require the Secretary of State to consider appointing a special needs expert, but leave him free to decide not to do so. By making it a condition of grant that specialist advice is obtained, the Government's approach avoids that element of uncertainty.

Amendment No. 48A would add bodies with experience or knowledge of students with learning difficulties to the parties which the further education funding councils are required to consult about the terms and conditions applicable to the payment of funds by the councils. While I recognise the concern behind the amendments, I have to say that the Government do not believe that that is appropriate.

It may be helpful if I explain the purpose of Clause 6. It ensures that the councils consult institutional representatives and governing bodies about the terms of the financial memorandum which will set out the principal conditions governing the financial relationship between the councils and individual colleges. It is clearly right that the councils should consult those directly concerned as and when they set conditions on grant. This clause provides a safeguard that the interests of colleges will be taken into account.

I appreciate that the amendment is intended to ensure that the interests of students with learning difficulties are not ignored. But, as I have explained, the Government believe that the best method of securing that is through the condition of grant that I have described. That will ensure that, when the FE funding councils are contemplating conditions to be attached to the grant they pay to colleges, their decisions are informed by specialist knowledge of the education of students with disabilities.

Amendments Nos. 66 and 154 would require the quality assessment committees to be established by the further and higher education funding councils to include persons who have experience of, and have shown capacity in, further or higher education provision for students with learning difficulties.

We believe that these amendments are unnecessary. The Bill provides for the majority of the members of the councils' quality assessment committees to have experience of, or have shown capacity in, the provision of further and higher education. That of course includes further and higher education provision for students with learning difficulties. Thus, the amendments would do no more than make explicit that which is already provided for in the Bill.

I can reassure your Lordships that the condition of grant we are proposing would apply here too. It will run through all the activities of the funding councils. It will apply to their quality assessment function. It will require them either to maintain an internal source of specialist advice or to seek that advice externally, for the purposes of discharging all their functions, including their responsibility for quality assessment.

The condition of grant that I have described has the effect that is sought by the promoters of these amendments of ensuring that the interests of students with learning difficulties are properly considered throughout all the many and various activities of the higher and further education funding councils. It has the advantage of securing that effect without requiring the representation of that group on the councils' main committees. As the House knows, we do not intend to make these appointments on a representative basis, while we do want concern with the interests of students with disabilities to suffuse all the councils' activities, not just the top layer of committees. The condition of grant is a better method of achieving that result. I hope that, having spoken at very great length, I have reassured the House and the amendments can be withdrawn.

Lord Renton

My Lords, we should be very grateful to my noble friend. Can he explain in what form the guidelines are to be given?

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, I need notice of that question. It will be guidance and not circulars, if that is the distinction which my noble friend is making.

Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support, which once again came from all sides of the House. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I thank the Minister very much for his reply, which was so detailed and wide ranging that I shall need to study it a great deal. I am very relieved that he said that we shall go into more detail as we come to each of the amendments.

I am extremely glad that the Government accept that specialist advice is needed, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, this is such a complicated field. This is a subject about which an exception has to be made. As the Minister said, the condition of grant seems to be a much better method and to make more sense. I am extremely grateful for that. I am not absolutely certain that I understood what he was saying in reply to Amendment No. 48A, which is an amendment to Clause 6. I shall read what he said about that. Meanwhile, I am extremely grateful for the idea of the condition of grant, which he said will apply to Amendments Nos. 15, 66, 130 and 154. Therefore, I have no hesitation in withdrawing my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Belsteadmoved Amendment No. 16:

Page 2, line 1, at beginning insert ("shall have regard to the desirability of including").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was considered with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 [Full-time education for 16 to 18 year-olds]:

[Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]

Baroness Davidmoved Amendment No. 19:

Page 2, line 20, leave out ("sufficient") and insert ("adequate").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, perhaps I should first point out that there is a mistake in Amendment No. 21 to which I shall be speaking with Amendment No. 19. The words "to be" should not be included in the words to be left out. The amendment should read, leave out 'sufficient' and insert 'adequate"'.

These are probing amendments which seek to discover any differences in the use of the words "sufficient" and "adequate" in different parts of the Bill: why the Government use one in one place and one in another. I looked up "sufficient" in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. The definition is: of a quantity, extent or scope adequate to a certain purpose or object "Adequate" is defined in the same dictionary as: Commensurate in fitness, sufficient, suitable".

"Sufficient" is used twice in Clause 2 and "adequate" is used in Clauses 3, 4 and 11. The word "inadequate" is used in Clause 6. In particular, the new local authority duties in Clause 11 are to be concerned with the provision of "adequate" facilities compared with the "sufficient" facilities mentioned in the council's Clause 2 duties. The basis under which students with learning difficulties may have provision outside the FEFC institutions is the lack of "adequate" facilities. That is in Clause 4(2). If students did not have learning difficulties and were full time and under 19 years of age Clause 2's "sufficient" facilities would apply.

"Sufficient" in the second line of Clause 2 is replaced by "adequate" in the second line of Clause 3 and the words "to be sufficient" in the middle of Clause 2(3) (a) are not repeated in the middle of Clause 3(2) (a). Inadequacy of provision is the main reason for requiring an FEFC institution to act as a sponsoring body in applying to a council for financial support for an external institution—that is, in Clause 6(5). I am rather mystified, as other people have been, by the use of those words. I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's explanation. I beg to move.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the duty placed on the councils by Clause 2 carries over to the funding councils the duty imposed on local education authorities under Section 8 of the Education Act 1944. In Section 8 of the 1944 Act local education authorities are under a duty, to secure that there shall be available for their area sufficient schools … for providing secondary education". That includes, at present, full-time education for young people aged 16 to 18 years.

The duty placed on the councils by Clause 3 carries over to the councils the duty imposed on LEAs under Section 41 of the 1944 Act. That places LEAs under a duty to secure the provision for their area of adequate facilities for further education. The Government's intention is quite simply to try to carry forward both provisions in the same terms to the new funding councils.

We could debate at some length the meaning of the words "sufficient" and "adequate" but my understanding is that for the purposes of the duties on local education authorities it has always been accepted that the term "sufficient" in Section 8 of the 1944 Act imposed a stronger power than the term "adequate" in Section 41. The effect of the amendment would be taken to reduce the strength of the duty on the funding councils. That is an objective which I should not have thought was the intention of the noble Baroness.

I hope that explanation will persuade the noble Baroness that the amendment has achieved its objective of probing what the Government understand is the reason for the use of the two different words and the effect of the two different words. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that it would not be right to "level down" by getting this amendment agreed to—because that would be the effect of it—and that in fact the status quo of the 1944 Education Act is about right.

Baroness David

My Lords, I am very glad to have had that explanation and I think I understand it. I shall read it again with care and look up the references in the Bill, but I see that the Bill is following the 1944 Act. I am very grateful to the Minister for that explanation and, as I said, I shall look forward to reading it again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 not moved.]

6.15 p.m.

Lord Addingtonmoved Amendment No. 24:

Page 2, line 37, at end insert ("taking into account the higher unit costs of sixth form colleges").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, once again we find ourselves dealing with sixth form colleges. The basic thrust of this amendment is to ensure that the funding councils do not discriminate against sixth form colleges due to their higher costs.

We had a long and fairly full debate on this issue at Committee stage and the basic thrust of that discussion seemed to revolve around the problem that it was not quite clear what sixth form colleges were. The basic point that we were debating throughout was whether they were colleges or schools. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said at one point: It would be open to the funding councils to take into account the special aspects of the provision offered by sixth form colleges and denominational colleges, and to consider how they should be reflected in the funding methodology".

The noble Lord, Lord Peston, then pointed out that sixth form college provision is not in any sense special case provision, merely different and just more expensive. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, then said: It will be for the further education councils to judge how to make the most effective use of their resources and how to avoid provision that might give rise to disproportionate expenditure. We should not forget that in the Bill that is tied, following the example of the 1944 Act, to meeting the reasonable needs of the young people of the age group of the area. There is no question of imposing an inflexible funding framework on the new sector. The funding reforms are intended to allow institutions to make the most of their differences and not to obliterate them".—[Official Report, 9/12/91; col. 505.]

If we are trying to make the most of those differences and have finite resources in trying to meet the demands for educational places, funding is ultimately going to be a very important part of the whole question. The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that it is appreciated that sixth form colleges are designed for people who want a more structured sixth form type approach but do not have sixth forms available to them.

Much argument took place concerning the differences between colleges and sixth forms and how people sometimes preferred colleges. Sixth form colleges, and indeed sixth forms, are not actually identical to the school process until that point. They merely provide more of a structure and often more of a sense of identity. That is why they are very valuable. Colleges can be very impersonal places which impose new disciplines on certain pupils—perhaps "students", would be a better term to use at this point. Therefore, the sixth form college is a type of school. Indeed, it is closer to a school due to the fact that everybody is doing similar types of courses, as opposed to the tertiary colleges which are going to have a far wider cross-section of courses and students and thus less of a sense of community about them. That is something I found when I was a student and from speaking to people attending these colleges in more recent times. Unless we address the fact that this sector is providing a very important service and thus requires some form of consideration in providing this service, economics may well mean that they are about to die as the courses themselves can be offered at colleges. But the way in which teaching takes place and the atmosphere in which the students are taking part in the courses will be very different. That is what we are aiming at in this amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Peston

My Lords, it is bound to be the case that the funding councils will be subject to economic pressures at all times. Given that the cost of sixth form colleges is 50 to 100 per cent. higher than the cost of further education colleges, I do not see how one can avoid the statement that sixth form colleges may not survive. I cannot believe that either this Government or the likely successor from this side of the House will suddenly find a great pot of gold with which to finance FE colleges. Therefore I cannot see the FE colleges receiving a great deal of extra money. What I can see is almost everyone being tempted to bring down the costs in sixth form colleges, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, to get rid of them. That cannot be the Government's intention. I do not believe for one moment that that is their intention. Therefore, the reason for having this explicitly on the face of the Bill is to provide a minimum safeguard in that respect.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the amendment would require a further education funding council, in fulfilling its duty to avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure, to take into account the unit costs of sixth form colleges which it is implied would invariably be higher than those of other colleges in the new sector. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for explaining in some detail why apprehensions in this respect arise.

The amendment touches on two issues which are of great interest to us. The first is the interpretation of "disproportionate expenditure" in Clause 2 and the second is the future funding of sixth form colleges, which is what the discussion so far has been mainly about. My noble friend Lord Cavendish gave a definition of "disproportionate" during the Committee stage. I shall not go over that ground again except to stress that the avoidance of disproportionate expenditure should not be taken to mean the avoidance of expensive provision. Subsection (5) of Clause 2 simply provides that the funding councils' expenditure must be proportionate to the purpose for which the expenditure is applied. The councils will not therefore be prevented from making provision at a particular institution in a particular area or for a particular subject but they will have to consider the purpose for which the expenditure is being provided. The purpose must of course include meeting the reasonable needs of all persons to whom the duty to secure education facilities extends. Those words are to be found in Clause 2(3) (a).

I hope your Lordships will agree that this provision is a sensible one. There is a read across from disproportionate to what is reasonable. It is certainly in line with what exists at present in the Education Act 1944, which requires local education authorities to discharge their functions in a way which avoids unreasonable public expenditure. The wording is slightly different but there is exactly the same intention and effect.

Against that background I believe the amendment to be unnecessary. In considering whether or not the funds that they make available to sixth form colleges are disproportionate to their purpose, the funding councils will need to take account of both the cost of the education provided by the colleges and the purpose for which that cost is being applied. If the cost of such provision is indeed higher but this can be justified in the council's opinion by reference to the purpose, then Clause 2 most certainly would not prevent such provision being made.

Costs in the new sector will vary. The White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century made clear that the funding councils would be able to apply weightings to student numbers and to take account of differential costs of certain types of study and additional costs arising from such factors as special educational needs. As I said in Committee when we debated this very point, there is no question of imposing an inflexible funding framework on the new sector. The funding reforms are intended to allow different institutions to make the most of their differences.

I hope that what I have said will reassure the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Addington. I am making a substantive point. I am not just, as a matter of rote, saying that we do not agree with an amendment. I am saying that we believe that in Clause 2 we are tackling in a different way the same problem identified by the noble Lords. We are saying that the funding councils must consider the reasonable needs of all the persons to whom their duty to provide education extends and then see whether those needs are by any chance disproportionate to the expenditure. That is the meaning of "disproportionate" in Clause 2. It does not mean that because particular provision is expensive that must be wrong. It may mean sometimes that expensive provision is right and needs to be met.

Lord Addington

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is always good at sounding reasonable. He has come a long way towards meeting me. Unfortunately, he always makes me a little wary because from the impression he has given I am not quite sure how far he has come. I should like to read what the noble Lord has said and see whether he has indeed come as far as I think he has. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Henderson of Bromptonmoved Amendment No. 25:

Page 2, line 37, at end insert ("This subsection shall not preclude expenditure made under section 4.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendment No. 31. The amendment has certain similarities to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. In both Clauses 2 and 3 we wish to add the words, This subsection shall not preclude expenditure made under section 4",

in order to qualify this difficult word "disproportionate". It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has dealt with my point in answering Amendment No. 24. However, I should like to explain very briefly why we consider these amendments to be necessary.

We are concerned to define "disproportionate expenditure" so that the term cannot be used in respect of spending on students under Clause 4. I wish first to establish that the kind of students I am talking about are those who need expensive equipment or expensive human help to enable them to engage in their studies in higher or further education. Naturally enough the provision of additional buildings or the modification of buildings is expensive. The computers used by blind people cost more than £5,000. Someone who is expert in helping a deaf student may be required at a cost of perhaps £10 or £15 an hour. That is expenditure very much in excess of that which would be required by any student who does not have learning difficulties. However disproportionate that may seem, it is not disproportionate in relation to the need of the blind student. The expenditure is very much in proportion.

It is certainly not our view that the expenditure necessary for a blind or deaf student can be determined in regard to numbers when comparing what is the average that is necessary for students. The student who needs these extra aids will always appear to be in need of disproportionate expenditure. For that reason we are trying to clarify the expression in the Bill.

When we ran over this ground in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, was helpful. At one stage he gave a definition of "disproportionate" which I shall now quote. Disproportionate expenditure, is expenditure which is out of proportion to what is being provided for".—[Official Report, 9/12/91; col. 570.]

He then referred to the "reasonable needs" in Clause 2(3)(a). When I questioned him—thinking that that definition was very useful—as to whether he would consider including it in the text of the Bill, he said that he saw no reason why it should not be included, subject to taking advice. Since that time I have noted that he has not put down that definition. I do not blame him for it, but I also see that there is some impairment, if I may put it that way, in the definition. It is not watertight.

I do not believe that I need to go into the matter in detail. I merely say that if I had been the Minister, I should not have put down the amendment, but he kindly said he would consider it. However, I am not clear whether or not this amendment is necessary so I move it in a spirit of inquiry. I feel that my amendments to the two clauses make it clear beyond peradventure that disproportionate expenditure shall not apply to expenditure under Clause 4. If the amendment is necessary, I very much hope that Ministers will accept it. If it is not, I hope that they will explain why. In that spirit, I beg to move.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, he frankly stated that he wondered whether the amendment was truly requisite. I do not believe that it is, when taken with the clause. I understand the concern but do not think it should be taken into the statute. If the amendment is not necessary, it can only be either otiose or confusing.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, these amendments are important for the interests about which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, spoke. They would qualify the requirement on the further education funding councils to avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure by specifying that the requirement does not preclude expenditure on provision for students with learning difficulties. While the Government accept the sentiment behind the amendments, it ought to be achieved in the way that I believe it is achieved in the text of the Bill.

First, perhaps I may say that I fully understand the concern which has given rise to the amendments; it is that the requirement to avoid provision which might give rise to disproportionate expenditure might at the same time restrict the funding councils in making provision for students with disabilities. However, this is neither the intention nor is it, I believe, the effect of the requirement in the Bill.

As I mentioned at the previous stage and repeated this evening, the reference to disproportionate expenditure is intended to exclude expenditure which is out of proportion to the need being met, not to rule out provision which is necessarily expensive, such as provision for students with disabilities. That intention is set out on the face of the Bill. Clause 2(3)(a) provides that a funding council shall provide sufficient educational facilities, to meet the reasonable needs of all persons to whom the duty extends". But, under subsection (5), a funding council must avoid disproportionate expenditure, meaning disproportionate to meeting the reasonable needs under Clause 2(3)(a). This is very much in line with the present law where the Education Act 1944 talks in Section 76 about avoiding unreasonable public expenditure in providing educational facilities.

The noble Lord suggested at the Committee stage that the Bill might define the word "disproportionate". He has referred to that this evening. For the reasons I have just explained, we have concluded that for the purposes of this legislation the meaning of the phrase "disproportionate expenditure" in the present text is clear as it stands. Furthermore, we intend to spell out in guidance to the funding councils that precluding disproportionate expenditure does not, as I said, rule out provision which is necessarily expensive, such as that for students with disabilities. This will be guidance from the Secretary of State to the funding councils making clear the uses to which they can put the grant which he gives them. There need be no fear that such guidance would be ineffective or would not be attended to.

I hope that that additional assurance may make the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, feel that I have given a reasonable reply to an important amendment. Put bluntly and shortly, I believe that the text of Clause 2 is clear that "disproportionate expenditure" means out of proportion to the purpose for which the expenditure is applied—namely, meeting the reasonable needs of the people for whom the expenditure is incurred. The noble Lord gave the example of expensive facilities which are necessary for students with disabilities. That is the right way to go about it.

At the same time, behind what the noble Lord said lies an apprehension. I hope that the assurance I have given about guidance to the funding councils may be useful in that respect.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, I have seldom received such a welcome reply to an amendment which I had put down but which the Minister was not able to accept. He has been able to give me not just one assurance but two assurances that what we seek to achieve through the amendment will be fulfilled. This makes assurance doubly sure, because he said, and of course I accept, first, that what we seek to achieve is already accomplished by the drafting of the Bill—obscure though it is to some of us who have been worrying about "disproportionate expenditure". Secondly, it is a magnificent plus to have the assurance that this difficulty which we have found will be spelt out in guidance. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for that double assurance. My amendment is therefore otiose and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]

Lord Pestonmoved Amendment No. 27:

Page 2, line 42, at end insert: ("(7) In discharging those functions a council shall make it a condition of any grant paid to an institution for the provision of full time education for persons who have not attained the age of 19 years that a charge may only be made for such provision in circumstances where a comparable charge may be made in respect of a registered pupil at a school under sections 106 to 111 of the Education Reform Act 1988.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I make no apologies for returning to this subject: I regard it as absolutely fundamental. Although other noble Lords and I had a few points to make about charging at the Committee stage, I believe that we need to go over a little of the ground again.

One of the great merits of the Education Reform Act 1988 was that it endeavoured to make clear what was meant by free education within the maintained schools. There have been some technical difficulties with it which I appreciate we have still not quite been able to solve. However, it is much to the Government's credit that they tried to deal with the matter and we strongly supported them on it.

As we move into the subject of charging, difficulties arise. There is no difficulty about pupils who will still be at school in the range of 16 to 18 or 19 years. There is some difficulty in agreeing whether we mean 16 to 18 years or 16 to less than, or equal to 19. However, we all know the group we are talking about. Those pupils in schools cannot be charged for their education. There is a question about charging for extras; that is one of the technicalities of the 1988 Act which has not quite been solved.

When we debated this in Committee, the Minister pointed out something to me which I must admit I did not know. It was that it is a matter of custom and practice that other people in the same age group engaged in the same or similar courses full-time in further education colleges would not pay fees. It is purely a matter of custom and practice that they do not do so, not a matter of law. As the sixth form colleges move into the FE sector, the Government have taken the view, as I see it, as a matter of logical consistency, that fee paying—I am concentrating on full-time students, although there are matters to do with part-time students that I should like to have debated but we have no time for it—could apply to students, as we have to call them, in sixth form colleges, but, again, we are reassured that custom and practice—habit if one likes—will prevent that happening.

However, that is not good enough. A point on consistency that I missed making in Committee I can make now. If it is consistency that we are looking for, then consistency can move in either direction. I am talking about the principle for the moment. We can allow fee paying in the new sixth form colleges within the FE sector or, logically, we could remove from the FE sector the right to charge fees. I should have made that point in Committee. If consistency is what matters, the obvious amendment to the law is the reverse of the one the Government have chosen; namely, they should not rely on custom and practice but should make it a matter of law that all 16 to 19 year-olds in full-time education receive their education free of charge.

I am not concerned with the minutiae of extras for flour, equipment and other matters. We all know what we are talking about. If there are minutiae that my amendment does not cover, I shall not find acceptable from the Government a reply that says that there are details that have not been dealt with. What matters here is the principle. The principle is that full-time education for 16 to 19 year-olds should be free as a matter of law. I do not understand why the Government, having gone to so much trouble over the 1988 Act—I repeat that I am aware of how difficult it was—have not taken the opportunity to make that clear for the whole of that age group in the FE sector, if that is where they are going to be.

The only reason that the Government could have is that fee paying may one day become a possibility. I hope that the Government will say that they, or successors from their party—if we have to suffer that in the future—do not have the slightest intention of introducing fee paying for 16 to 19 year-olds. If that is their view, they should accept the amendment. If they do not like its drafting, they have time to put forward their own amendment. This is not a minor matter. It lies at the heart of our education system. It is vital that there should be no fee paying. As it turned out, I did not understand that it is a matter of custom and practice for that age group in the FE sector, but it should now become a matter of law. I beg to move.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord for clarification. My first question is: is it suggested that there is any fee paying at the moment? Secondly, is it supposed that the Government that I support will impose a fee-paying regime? Is it on the cards that the party opposite, or either of the parties opposite, would impose such a regime? If it is not, why is this a matter of such burning importance?

6.45 p.m.

Earl Russell

My Lords, I might be able to answer the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It is not suggested that fees are being charged at present in the FE sector; it is not suggested that the Government have any present plans for introducing charging. We accept the assurances that the Minister gave in Committee on that subject. On the other hand, when one puts something on the statute book, one puts it there for all governments until it is repealed.

We are aware of the acute financial pressure that there is on educational institutions of all sorts and in all places. If we have custom and practice only preventing the charging of fees in one place and statute preventing it in another, and if those two places will be in competition one with the other, we do not believe that we have a level playing field.

Under the Bill, we shall have many institutions being moved from the local authority schools sector into the further education sector—being transferred out of an area where fee charging is restricted by statute into one where it is restricted by custom and practice only. As we have already heard in the important debate on sixth forms, there is the possibility of school sixth forms in one sector, in effect, competing with sixth form colleges in the other sector. If one of those in that competition is subject to a financial restriction which does not apply in the other, we do not have a level playing field. We should have a level playing field.

For avoidance of anomaly and significant doubt and because we should be much safer if the Government were to see their way to accepting the amendment, they should place it on the statute book and complete the helpful work of clarification that they began in 1988.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, replies, perhaps he will justify why he has again made the division between full-time and part-time education. That is an antiquated approach. It may be convenient for the amendment, but, were it to be accepted by the House, we should have that division.

My noble friend may be in a better position than the noble Lord to reply to my next point. The noble Lord made lighthearted references to the fact that he was not talking about cooking ingredients and that type of thing. Will my noble friend tell the House the extent to which it is at present possible to charge in schools and sixth form colleges, because there is a difference between basic tuition, which, I understand, is, as in Scotland, free, and the various additional provisions for which a charge may be made?

I remember spending many hours on the education committee in which I was involved, identifying what within the law those additions to the basic provision might be. I do not believe that the situation in that respect is any different south of the Border. Will my noble friend confirm clearly that school education is free except for one or two little things like the flour we put into the cakes? People take the flour and then return home with the cake in recompense, as it were. A similar thing happens with woodwork. I suspect that there are other parts of education for which charges can in law be made. That will apply likewise to further education. It is an important point. I ask my noble friend to clarify it and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to clarify the earlier query.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, the effect of the amendment would be to preclude colleges in the new sector from charging for all tuition and associated costs for full-time education for those under 19 years of age. The only exceptions would be those in the limited circumstances in which schools are permitted to charge under the Education Reform Act 1988 in respect of individual tuition in the playing of a musical instrument.

As I emphasised in the debate on a similar amendment in Committee, young people aged 16 to 18 in full-time further education are not charged for the tuition they receive. There is no legislative basis for that; it is entirely a matter of practice. I gave an undertaking that it is not the intention to change the practice. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for saying that is accepted. I know it is accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, but the noble Lord makes the point that what is needed is a change in the law. However, it is also a matter of practice in many further education colleges to make charges for materials, books and other requirements.

The provisions in the Education Reform Act relate to schools. Education provided by colleges is often very different from that in schools. In many areas it involves greater use of materials. It must be left to colleges to decide whether to provide those materials free of charge or whether to make a charge to students. If they were obliged to provide them free of charge in all circumstances, they would lose an element of the existing freedom they have over the distribution of their resources.

My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked me to what extent it is possible in schools and colleges to charge for ingredients, materials and things of that kind. I believe I have now answered that point. I refer to the limited circumstances in which schools are permitted to charge under the Education Reform Act 1988. However, I wish to verify that. I shall write to my noble friend if I have been inaccurate.

I wish to reiterate the point I have just made. We are talking about a difference of scale here. There is undoubtedly, particularly for students on certain courses, a far greater use of materials of various kinds in college courses than is the case in schools. In this regard it is important to allow for flexibility. That flexibility would not occur if this amendment were accepted. I am sure your Lordships would not wish to introduce an amendment which would inhibit colleges from offering particular types of course—for example, craft courses, catering courses and other courses of a vocational nature much in demand—because with the cost of materials they consume a disproportionate share of the college's resources.

I hope noble Lords will forgive me for making a point that often riles the House. Given that many further education colleges already charge for materials, this amendment by precluding them from doing so in future would lead to an increase in public expenditure and to a need for a shift in resources from other parts of the education system.

I repeat that the Government regard this amendment as one that is liable to deny colleges the freedom we are anxious to give them. I am not referring to the payment of fees for tuition. I have given an undertaking on that matter and I know that undertaking has been accepted by noble Lords. There is no intention to change the practice as regards that matter. However, other charges made by the further education sector—irrespective of whether one applauds them or not—provide a freedom which colleges have at the present time. By accepting this amendment we would preclude that freedom. That is why I cannot accept it.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I must say first of all to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that I was unable to reply to his three questions because of the rules of procedure on Report stage. I do not wish the noble Lord to think I was unable to say anything on those matters. Indeed I realise the noble Earl, Lord Russell, dealt with them.

I am extremely unhappy with the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. He did exactly what I asked him not to do in concentrating on the minutiae and the trivia of this matter rather than on the fundamental principles involved. This issue has nothing to do with ingredients required for certain courses although I should say that such ingredients have posed difficulties in schools. This issue concerns the fundamental principle that education in the compulsory sector and in the full-time post-16 sector should be and must be guaranteed to be free. I always accept the noble Lord's bona fides, but that is not what this amendment is about. It is not about the Government pledging in their dying days not to introduce this kind of measure. It concerns what we regard as the provision of free education in our country.

I should refer to an anomaly here. When sixth form colleges enter the further education sector under the terms of this Bill, textbooks that were provided free when sixth form colleges were classed as schools will have to be provided by the students themselves. I wonder whether the Government will widely publicise the fact that from now on a considerable number of students will bear the cost of providing materials that were hitherto provided by the state. Of course I accept that there is a public expenditure aspect to this matter. As someone who used to regard himself as being knowledgeable about public expenditure, I should point out that we are discussing small sums here. We are not discussing massive sums of money. If the Minister wishes to protect the ingredient cost aspect, I would be happy to see him table an amendment to that effect. However, he has not given the remotest indication that the Government take this matter as seriously as they should. I wish to divide your Lordships' House.

6.56 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 27) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Hollis of Heigham, B.
Airedale, L.	Hutchinson of Lullington, L.
Avebury, L.	Judd, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Kilbracken, L.
Birk, B.	Kirkhill, L.
Blackstone, B.	Lockwood, B.
Blease, L.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	McNair, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Mallalieu, B.
Carter, L.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Nicol, B.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Parry, L.
Cobbold, L.	Peston, L.
David, B.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Desai, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Donoughue, L.	Rochester, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Russell, E. [Teller.]
Ennals, L.	Seear, B.
Gallacher, L.	Serota, B.
Galpern, L.	Shepherd, L.
Glenamara, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
[Teller.]	Tordoff, L.
Grey, E.	Turner of Camden, B.
Guildford, Bp.	Underhill, L.
Hampton, L.	White, B.
Hamwee, B.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Hatch of Lusby, L.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Darcy (de Knayth), B.
Ampthill, L.	Denham, L.
Arran, E.	Denton of Wakefield, B.
Ashbourne, L.	Eccles of Moulton, B.
Astor, V.	Elibank, L.
Auckland, L.	Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Balfour, E.	Elton, L.
Belstead, L.	Erne, E.
Blake, L.	Ferrers, E.
Blatch, B.	Flather, B.
Blyth, L.	Fortescue, E.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Gardner of Parkes, B.
Brigstocke, B.	Glenarthur, L.
Brookeborough, V.	Gridley, L.
Brookes, L.	Grimston of Westbury, L.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Hardinge of Penshurst, L.
Butterworth, L.	Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Byron, L.	Henderson of Brompton, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Henley, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Hesketh, L. [Teller.]
Carnock, L.	Hives, L.
Cavendish of Furness, L.	Hooper, B.
Cochrane of Cults, L.	Howe, E.
Coleraine, L.	Jeffreys, L.
Colnbrook, L.	Jenkin of Roding, L.
Craigavon, V.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Kenilworth, L.

Kimball, L.	Reay, L.
Kinloss, Ly.	Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.
Kinnoull, E.	Renton, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Renwick, L.
Lindsey and Abingdon, E.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Liverpool, E.	Savile, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Seccombe, B.
Lyell, L.	Selsdon, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.	Shannon, E.
Macfarlane of Beardsden, L.	Shrewsbury, E.
Mackay of Clashfern, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Macleod of Borve, B.	Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Marlesford, L.	Stockton, E.
Merrivale, L.	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Mersey, V.	Strange, B.
Monk Bretton, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Morris, L.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Mottistone, L.	[Teller.]
Mountevans, L.	Sudeley, L.
Munster, E.	Teviot, L.
Napier and Ettrick, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Nelson, E.	Trefgarne, L.
Norfolk, D.	Trumpington, B.
O'Cathain, B.	Ullswater, V.
Orkney, E.	Vivian, L.
Orr-Ewing, L.	Waddington, L.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.	Wharton, B.
Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.	Wolfson of Sunningdale, L.
Quinton, L.	Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

7.4 p.m.

Clause 3 [Part-time education, and full-time education for those over 18]:

[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]

Baroness Lockwoodmoved Amendment No. 28A:

Page 3, line 7, at end insert: ("(c) long term and short term residential educational opportunities for mature adults at both further and higher education levels.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 28A I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 30. Both amendments are concerned with long- and short-term residential education but Amendment No. 30 is rather wider than Amendment No. 28A.

In Committee we spoke in some detail about long-term residential colleges and their future. I want to return to that subject. There was consensus in Committee about the value of the work of the long-term residential colleges. Those of us involved with the earlier amendment were grateful to the Minister for saying that the Government recognise the unique place which those colleges hold in the education system. We were also grateful to him for underlining the Government's firm belief that the colleges have a role to play in the new sectors of further and higher education. Nevertheless, as I said when I withdrew my earlier amendment, despite the Minister's assurances, there was still doubt as to whether or not the colleges would be able to fulfil all the functions which they currently undertake.

My noble friend Lord McCarthy spoke with great conviction about the special role which the colleges perform in higher education, not just in providing access to higher education but in higher education itself through their ability to recognise and directly develop academic potential without regard to previous academic qualifications. He also spoke of their preference for students involved in community work.

Amendment No. 28A attempts to ensure that the residential colleges will be able to continue with all the aspects of education with which they are presently concerned. I have in mind in particular the work of Ruskin College and its two-year diploma course.

In Committee the Minister promised that guidance would be given to the funding councils that the distinctive characteristics of those institutions must be fully taken into account. We welcomed that. It will be most helpful. Nevertheless it does not tell us now, nor does the Bill, what the mechanics for carrying that out will be. Amendment No. 28A is intended to make clear that both the further and the higher education aspects of residential education will be continued.

The amendment also refers to short-term residential opportunities. That is a function which the long-term residential colleges also perform and perform very effectively, as do the short-term residential colleges, which were not mentioned during the Committee stage. I should like to refer briefly to their work, which is also covered by Amendment No. 30.

There is an association of adult residential colleges which represents 24 colleges offering short-term courses of between two and seven days' duration in a wide variety of vocational and non-vocational subjects. The association has indicated that that programme is one of intensive study away from the distractions of home and family commitments in a supportive and caring environment. It is particularly suited to women and those who are approaching or who have reached the age of retirement and who are often unable to attend weekly day or evening classes. That applies particularly in the case of women because of their family or other commitments. The association is concerned that the current provision of both vocational and non-vocational courses in the residential colleges will not be protected under the Bill. That is largely because, by their very nature, the short-term colleges attract students from all parts of the country. Most of the courses attract over 50 per cent. of their students from other parts of the country in addition to the students coming from within the local authority area in which the short-term residential college is based. They therefore perform an important function in adult education and it is proper that we should take account of their needs. They are included under both Amendments Nos. 28A and 30.

In Committee the Minister said that it was not appropriate to refer to the long-term residential colleges because we were singling out a particular type of institution which, as he said, important though they are, are only a small part of the FE sector. Amendment No. 30 refers to four aspects of adult education: the long-term residential courses, the short-term residential courses, the WEA and the four London colleges. In that respect, when one takes account of the colleges of further education and the range of voluntary adult education, we more or less encompass in the Bill the whole range of education for adults. It is therefore appropriate that the amendments should be included in the Bill and I hope that the Minister will accept them. I beg to move.

Baroness David

My Lords, my name is to these amendments and I should very much like to support my noble friend.

We said a great deal about residential colleges at the last stage and they were pleased with the vote of confidence that they received in the debate in Committee, but they are still extremely anxious about certain aspects. I should like to ask again about student numbers. I mentioned last time that Coleg Harlech had more or less been informed by the Welsh Office that it would not be allowed to increase its numbers. There was some reassurance from the Minister, but I should like to ask again about that.

All the colleges are still anxious about whether they will be properly funded to enable them to continue all the different work that they do. I gather that they would like a guarantee that the funding councils will continue to fund all core aspects of their work at both further and higher education levels, including training for citizenship and participation, in line with their missions. That would be in parallel with the reply that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, gave to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on 21st November last year offering a similar guarantee in relation to the WEA. He said at cols. 1124–5; There is therefore no question of the Government's proposals reducing the WEA's public subsidy. I can give the noble Earl an assurance that the funding council will be able to fund all aspects of the WEA's work, not just those courses listed in Schedule 2". I understand that that is the assurance that the residential colleges would like from the Minister tonight.

I should like to say a word more about short-term residential colleges which have been mentioned by my noble friend because we did not say very much about those in Committee. I have received a communication which shows that there is a good deal of anxiety, particularly because the colleges supply short courses for people outside their own area, which means that people must attend on a residential basis in order to take the courses. They want the work of the short-term colleges to be protected by inserting into the Bill a requirement for local education authorities to maintain the current provision of residential adult education courses in short-term residential colleges. Alternatively, they would like to seek direct financing of short-term residential colleges from the FEFC, but it is critical that that funding should be for the whole range of activities carried out in the colleges and not merely for those areas of work covered by Schedule 2 to the Bill.

I hope that, although the amendments may not be ideally drafted to cover the colleges, the spirit in which they have been tabled might be accepted by the Government and we may therefore have a little more guarantee and reassurance than we had last time.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Addington

My Lords, perhaps I may rise briefly to support, at the very least, the spirit of the amendments for the simple reason that anything that ensures a wide variety of educational opportunity should be supported. That is especially so with regard to the provision of a residential college for mature students so that they may undertake what are in many cases non-structured and non-conventional courses. That is surely a great contribution to the educational opportunities available to the whole of our community and it should therefore be supported.

Baroness White

My Lords, I am most grateful to my two noble friends who have spoken to these amendments. For obvious reasons, looking at the clock, I do not want to detain the House, but I should like strongly to support the arguments that they have put forward.

As some of your Lordships know, I have had almost a lifelong association with the Welsh residential college, Coleg Harlech. We are still anxious about how far we shall be controlled in what we are supposed to be doing. For example, many of us believe that it would be far better to allow us to continue with certain two-year academic courses in the residential college. We have made arrangements with various universities—not every one in the United Kingdom, but with a number of them—whereby anyone who takes the university-controlled diploma and reaches a sufficient standard will be accepted by the university as a second-year student. In other words, he or she will spend two years in the residential college and only two years obtaining a degree.

The proportion of our students who go on to higher education is very high. It is foolish to expect many of them to spend their first year with a lot of young people who have just left the sixth form and are trying to manage their bank accounts. It is far better for such people to have the extra person-to-person, or at any rate fairly small group, education in the residential college and to have the two years there and the two years in the university than to do it the other way round and say, "You can do it for one year, but not for two. That is extravagant". If you know the kind of people who come to the long-term residential colleges, you know perfectly well that for the majority of them two years at college and two years at university is a much better bet.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, both the amendments concern the long-term residential colleges and the short-term residential colleges which, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and other noble Lords, we did not discuss quite so much last time. The second amendment—Amendment No. 30—also concerns the Workers' Educational Association and the four specialist adult colleges in London.

The long-term residential colleges, the WEA and the four London colleges are all to be designated for funding by the further education councils under Clause 28. The short-term residential colleges will either continue under the auspices of their local education authority or, if they offer the kind of provision that would come under Schedule 2, they may apply for funding by the councils under Clause 6(5).

At the risk of repetition, perhaps I may say a few words of amplification in that respect. The six long-term residential colleges—Ruskin, Plater, Hillcroft, Fircroft, Co-operative and Northern—were reviewed earlier this year by the Department of Education and Science. In the light of the review, Ministers recognised the unique place that those colleges hold in providing residential education for adults who have missed out during their school years. The Government decided that it would be appropriate for the colleges to enter the new further education sector. That will happen under Clause 28. It will enable their needs for capital funding, for example, to be considered alongside those of other colleges. Similar decisions were reached in respect of Coleg Harlech in Wales.

The noble Baroness, Lady David, made a point about whether the funding council will support all kinds of courses in the long-term residential colleges. When looking at the results of the review, my colleagues in the department believed that there was some scope for sharpening the focus of the colleges' work. After all, things have changed as the years have gone by. There are now many routes into education for adults. There are many opportunities to undertake study in vocational or academic areas and if necessary in basic skills before that. Entry to higher education for adults has become easier. Ministers therefore believed that the long-term residential colleges needed to make the best use of their specialist strengths. That is why the colleges were asked to concentrate on assisting access to higher education for students without conventional academic qualifications who are most in need of residential education. The colleges were also asked to provide courses in which the residential element generally lasts no more than a year and a greater number of short courses so as to increase the number of students who benefit from their facilities.

Noble Lords will forgive me repeating it but this should all be seen as a vote of confidence in the long-term residential colleges. The Government firmly believe that they have an important role to play in the new sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, repeated, we shall make clear in guidance to the funding councils that the distinctive characteristics of those institutions is to be taken fully into account.

The noble Baroness specifically mentioned the apprehensions of Ruskin College over the future of its courses. My understanding is that the college is ready to accept the idea that its residential facilities should be used for only one year by each student as a means of increasing throughput. We welcome that. However, the Government remain firmly of the view that the business of the long-term residential colleges in general and Ruskin in particular should be the provision of courses aimed at people with no or few formal qualifications. Consequently, we have some difficulty with Ruskin's proposals for a one-year course at a level equivalent to the second year of its existing course, with progression routes from other forms of further education and for diplomas which rely on a high entry standard.

On the other hand, it will be for Ruskin to negotiate with the Further Education Funding Council for England over its role in the new sector. It will also be open to the college to apply to the higher education funding council for funding certain courses. In short, the Bill allows Ruskin and indeed the other colleges a considerable degree of flexibility.

The noble Baroness, Lady White, specifically mentioned Coleg Harlech. Among the many points which the noble Baroness made was one about the level of student numbers for the future and the amount of control that it seemed there was to be over it. I am advised that Coleg Harlech will be free to negotiate over student numbers with the Welsh funding council in exactly the same way as the English colleges. I understand that the Welsh Office has asked the college to plan on the basis that student numbers will be held at a certain level. I believe that the figure is 140 full-time equivalent students. Bearing in mind the present level of numbers, we believe that that sounds entirely sensible but the figure should certainly not be regarded as being set in stone.

Perhaps I may say a brief word about the short-term colleges. Many are directly run by local education authorities and the position on their funding is not different from that of non-residential adult colleges. Incidentally, this is an area in which we are not changing the situation. Let us not forget that the Secretary of State has given an important undertaking—important so far as short-term colleges are concerned—over the funding of adult education for the future. Other short-term colleges are run by voluntary organisations or trusts and some are university centres.

Where short-term residential colleges are run by voluntary bodies, it will be open to them, as at present, to seek support from LEAs for the provision they make which falls within the LEAs' remit. As I said, Clause 6(5) of the Bill is available to them if they seek support for any provision which may previously have been supported by LEAs but which will in future fall within the remit of the funding councils. It will also be open to the voluntary bodies to explore direct with the funding councils the possibility of designation under Clause 28 where they believe that Clause 6(5) is not appropriate to them. So the Bill will not alter the position of the short-term residential colleges.

Amendment No. 28A refers to residential educational opportunities at both further and higher education levels. The noble Baroness will forgive me but I do not think it appropriate to require the further education funding councils to secure the provision of higher education. We remain firmly of the view that the business of the long-term residential colleges in particular should be the provision of courses aimed at people with no or few formal qualifications.

On the other hand, it will be for the colleges themselves to negotiate with the councils over their role in the new sector. It will also be open to them to apply to the higher education funding council for funding certain courses. In short, once again the Bill allows quite a lot of flexibility so far as concerns the long-term residential colleges.

Amendment No. 30 refers to the Workers' Educational Association and the four specialist adult colleges in London. I shall not speak about the WEA because, as the noble Baroness said, I have given an assurance, I believe, on two previous occasions. The Further Education Funding Council for England will be taking over that part of the WEA's funding now handled by the DES—over £2 million a year. The council for Wales will be taking over funding from the Welsh Office. The councils will be empowered to fund all aspects of the WEA's work, not just those courses listed in Schedule 2.

The LEAs also fund the WEA and in the past two years there has been an education support grant for that purpose in England. The grant will continue in 1992–93. We shall then consider whether it needs to continue longer in order fully to embed the funding for the WEA in LEAs' programmes. We believe it right that LEAs should fund the WEA to assist it in its duty of providing further education for adults. We believe that they will want to do so.

The four specialist adult colleges in London are the City Lit, Morley, Mary Ward and the Working Mens' College. I emphasise again that the future of those institutions within the new sector is secure. The Government recognise that they have a regional role in providing courses of all kinds for adults, not just those courses in Schedule 2. The council for England will be able to fund them in respect of all their provision and we do not look to them to make big changes.

Clause 3 is about the general duty on the councils to provide for the further education needs of adults. The councils will look to the long-term residential colleges, the WEA and the other specialist colleges to help fulfil that duty. That is why those institutions are to be included in the new sector. I must say, coming finally to the amendments, that I do not believe it is appropriate to write in special mention of those institutions as the amendments seek to do. I know I repeat my words but such action would single out institutions which form only a small part of the sector when the Government firmly expect that the funding councils will deal fairly with all the institutions in the sector.

I hope that what I have said quite extensively is an assurance that that is exactly what will happen. I apologise for speaking at some length but I know that this is an important matter. That is why it has been raised again. I know also that these are amendments tabled in earnest and that if I did not give proper replies, they would almost certainly be pressed. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press them.

Baroness Lockwood

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the care that he has taken over the amendments. I am sure that there will be some feeling of relief in certain quarters as a result of the Minister's assurances. Nevertheless they are just assurances. The noble Lord has not been prepared to accept the inclusion of anything in the Bill. Perhaps I may just pick up two points in the Minister's remarks. One concerns the position of the short-term colleges. He said that they are not greatly different from the non-residential colleges. The major difference is that they cater to a much greater extent for people who are beyond the local government authority. That is a principle which the Minister recognised in relation to the four London colleges, which he accepted provide a regional service. The other short-term residential colleges very often provide not just a regional service but also a national service.

On long-term residential colleges, the Minister concluded by saying that it would be wrong to pick them out because they represent only a small part of education. It is precisely for that reason that those colleges are anxious to have their functions and responsibilities included in the Bill. They are a small part of education. They will find it difficult to compete with some of the larger institutions in the further education sector. They will find it difficult to compete with the universities and polytechnics—whatever they are called—in the higher sector.

It would have alleviated their fears considerably if the Minister had accepted the amendment. I am sorry that he has not. In view of that, I must test the opinion of the House.

7.31 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 28A) shall be agreed to?

^*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 79.

Division No. 3
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Lockwood, B.
Airedale, L.	Macaulay of Bragar, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Birk, B.	McNair, L.
Blackstone, B.	Mallalieu, B.
Callaghan of Cardiff, L.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Parry, L.
Carter, L. [Teller.]	Peston, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Combermere, V.	Rochester, L.
Craigavon, V.	Russell, E.
David, B.	Seear, B.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Shepherd, L.
Desai, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Galpern, L.	Tordoff, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
[Teller.]	Underhill, L.
Grey, E.	White, B.
Hampton, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Kilbracken, L.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS
Arran, E.	Byron, L.
Ashbourne, L.	Campbell of Alloway, L.
Astor, V.	Carnegy of Lour, B.
Auckland, L.	Carnock, L.
Balfour, E.	Cavendish of Furness, L.
Belstead, L.	Cochrane of Cults, L.
Blatch, B.	Coleraine, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Colnbrook, L.
Brigstocke, B.	Craigmyle, L.
Brookeborough, V.	Denham, L.
Brookes, L.	Denton of Wakefield, B.
Butterworth, L.	Eccles of Moulton, B.

Elton, L.	Munster, E.
Ferrers, E.	Norfolk, D.
Flather, B.	O'Cathain, B.
Fortescue, E.	Orkney, E.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.	Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Gridley, L.	Rea, L.
Grimston of Westbury, L.	Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.
Harvington, L.	Renton, L.
Henley, L.	Seccombe, B.
Hesketh, L. [Teller.]	Selsdon, L.
Hives, L.	Shannon, E.
Hooper, B.	Shrewsbury, E.
Howe, E.	Skelmersdale, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.	Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Joseph, L.	Strange, B.
Lindsey and Abingdon, E.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Liverpool, E.	[Teller.]
Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Teviot, L.
Lyell, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.	Trumpington, B.
Mackay of Clashfern, L.	Ullswater, V.
Marlesford, L.	Vivian, L.
Mersey, V.	Waddington, L.
Monk Bretton, L.	Wharton, B.
Morris, L.	Young, B.
Mountevans, L.

^*[The Tellers for the Not-Contents reported 79 names. The Clerks recorded 80 names.]

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

7.39 p.m.

[Amendment No. 29 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that Report stage resume again at 8.40 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.