COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 18 July 2000)

§ Lord Bach

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. In speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 23 to 29 and 197 to 200.

There are only four government amendments about which I should like to speak in this group. The other amendments are all minor, technical points, although, of course, I shall be happy to provide explanations if required.

Amendment No. 22 extends the provisions of Clause 20 to enable a local LSC to perform duties and exercise functions outside its own area. This builds on a helpful debate and constructive suggestions from the Opposition Benches in another place about the funding of designated institutions, but the general point is relevant to a great many other providers. During that discussion, the Government agreed to consider how we might ensure that a provider operating in more than one location need not be burdened by having to liaise with several different local LSCs. This amendment provides for exactly such situations, by enabling a single local LSC to work with such a provider on behalf of any number of other local LSCs. The flexibility which this provision secures 787 would also allow other sensible co-operation between local LSCs where, for instance, a particular local LSC might fund a provider in its locality which was a regional centre of excellence—perhaps an agricultural or other specialist college—attracting students from outside the local LSC's area.

Noble Lords on the Benches opposite, as well as their colleagues in another place, have questioned our commitment to flexibility and decision-making at a local level. We believe that this amendment provides another example of how, on the contrary, the Government are committed to sensible bottom-up arrangements with co-operation between local LSCs where this is sensible.

Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 owe a great deal to debates we had during earlier stages in this House. Amendment No. 23 requires local LSCs to include in their plans a statement of the needs of local employers with regard to the skills available in the local workforce; that is, both existing and potential employees. Amendment No. 24 further requires that a local LSC plan should set out how the council proposes to exercise its functions to meet those needs.

These amendments therefore complement at the local level what Amendment No. 20 achieves at the national level, as has already been set out they put on the face of the Bill, and beyond any doubt, that local LSCs must and will engage in important workforce development activity in their area.

We have discussed this matter with the CBI, which has warmly welcomed our approach. I hope that noble Lords, too, will welcome this as a positive move forward, building on what the LSC prospectus has made clear—that local LSCs will have a vital role to play in: analysing local labour market and skill needs; deploying locally-managed development budgets to meet learning, skills and workforce development needs; [and] drawing up local workforce development strategies which will complement the direction of wider economic strategies". With Amendment No. 26 we remain in the territory of local LSC plans and the wider remit of local LSCs beyond post-16 learning. It is also another amendment inspired in some part by debates both here and in another place, together with suggestions raised by the TEC National Council. It provides that a local LSC's plan must include a statement of the likely effect of its activities on the wider economic development and regeneration of its area. In this way, the amendment is proof positive of our commitment to economic development and regeneration and the important local LSC role in relation to such matters.

As is already set out in Clause 22, local LSCs will consult and develop close links with regional development agencies and local authorities—but build on the best work of many TECs by liaising closely with the Employment Service, UfI Ltd, local learning partnerships, local economic development partnerships and the Small Business Service. Amendment No. 26 simply underlines that economic development and regeneration will be an important element within the LSC's broad remit.

788 I shall want to return to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, when I have heard what she has to say in moving it. However, let me say straight away that we share her view that the relationship between the RDAs and the local and national LSCs must be extremely close, but that I believe that our proposals already ensure the close cooperation she seeks. In the mean time, I commend the Commons amendments to the House.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. — (Lord Bach.)