TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS (Hansard, 17 February 2000)

§ Lord Bach
The provision has been made in the Bill in response to some doubts about the power of FE corporations to form companies. The provision in the Bill provides that corporations may form companies, but restricts this power to exclude explicitly the formation of such companies to provide education or to conduct an educational institution. These are clearly matters for which the corporations must take direct responsibility and be accountable for where they receive public funding.
On reflection, we accept that this provision could be interpreted as excluding the formation of companies to provide education or training which is not publicly funded. That was not our intention and we agree with the points made by the noble Lord.
However, there is a technical issue. We believe that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord might allow corporations to create self-financing companies to provide education for students registered at the institution and for whom there is already public funding.
Clearly, it would not be acceptable to allow publicly-funded education to be provided by college companies and by so doing for corporations to evade the accountability framework. Therefore, while we accept that the provision as drafted needs amendment, we do not consider that the amendment presently before the Committee is quite what is required. However, we understand the concern and I undertake to the noble Lord—this is the second time he has had such success this evening—that the Government will table an amendment in the other place to clarify the issue. Perhaps the least he can do for us is to withdraw the amendment, for the time being.

§ Lord Tope
I am very pleased to help the Minister in that way. I believe that I am on something of a roll. Perhaps we should carry on like this for the rest of the evening, but I expect that we shall not. I am grateful 1421 to the Minister for that reply and for the fact that the Government have reflected on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Baroness Blatch
This is a new and long group of amendments. It is also a very technical group. I would appreciate an explanation. I refer to Amendments Nos. 247 to 250.

§ Baroness Blackstone
This amendment was dealt with under Clause 11. It has been debated already.

§ Baroness Blatch
This and the other amendments represent the insertion of a new schedule. There has been no discussion about Schedule 8. I do not remember one. I agreed the groupings this morning. This amendment is not listed as having been already debated. It was not grouped with the Clause 11 amendments. Quite a number of explanations are required on Amendment No. 249, particularly on the insertion of the new schedule.

§ Baroness Blackstone
We debated these consequential amendments during the quite considerable time we spent on Clause 11 last week. That clause has been agreed by the Committee. I do not want to go into that debate again at this time. These amendments to the 1992 Act are necessary because at present it makes provision only for governing bodies themselves to appoint members. But the point is that these matters have already been debated. I apologise if that has not been indicated in the Groupings List.

§ Baroness Blatch
It has not been indicated. It has been indicated that these amendments are for discussion tonight. I have done my homework on them. I take leave to see what was said previously about each of the four amendments. It is not my recollection that they have been referred to. I do not remember the insertion of a new schedule.