HL Deb 18 July 2000 vol 615 cc777-84

1 Clause 2, page 2, line 20, at end insert— ("(3A) Provision is not to be considered as giving rise to disproportionate expenditure only because that provision is more expensive than comparable provision.")

2 Page 2, line 29, leave out paragraph (e)

3 Clause 3, page 3, line 12, at end insert— ("(3A) Provision is not to be considered as giving rise to disproportionate expenditure only because that provision is more expensive than comparable provision.")

4 Clause 5, page 3, line 41, after ("receiving") insert ("or proposing to receive")

5 Page 4, line 1, leave out paragraph (e) and insert— ("(e) institutions within the further or higher education sector (within the meaning of section 91 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992) which provide or propose to provide secondary education (other than post-16 education);")

6 Page 4, line 3, after ("undertaking") insert ("or proposing to undertake")

7 Page 4, line 20, after ("receiving") insert ("or proposing to receive")

8 Clause 6, page 4, line 29, leave out ("providing post-16 education or training") and insert ("to whom financial resources are provided")

9 Page 4, line 32, leave out ("post-16") and insert ("or proposing to provide")

10 Page 4, line 47, leave out ("post-16") and insert ("or proposing to provide")

11 Page 5, line 1, leave out ("post-16")

12 Clause 7, page 5, line 23, leave out ("and "maintained school" have") and insert ("has")

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 12 en bloc.

In speaking to these amendments, I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 16 to 21, 30 to 41, 45 to 50, 195, 196 and 202 to 204 and to the Liberal Democrat Amendment No. 20A.

This large group of amendments consists largely of minor technical amendments in respect of the learning and skills council for England and the national council for education and training for Wales. Given the weight of business before us today, I do not propose to go into the detail of the minor amendments in order that I can deal with the small number of rather more important points.

Throughout the passage of the Bill through this House there was concern about the meaning of "disproportionate expenditure". There was no disagreement about the policy that should inform its meaning. We entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said at Third Reading of the Bill on 23rd March that the cost of the provision should not be, the total guide to the operation of the councils".—[Official Report, 23/3/00; cols. 416.] This concern was expressed in respect of both sixth-form provision and for students with learning difficulties and disabilities.

We entirely accept this point. Incidentally, there is a misprint in Amendment No. 2 which should state, Page 2, line 29, leave out paragraph (e)". Amendment No. 2 simply removes the amendment added at Third Reading in this House in order to address its technical defects and replace it with a similar provision. Amendment No. 1 expresses in plain words that expenditure by the LSC must not be considered disproportionate simply where it is more expensive than comparable provision. We believe that this deals fairly, squarely and in a non-partisan manner with the concerns that were expressed. Amendments Nos. 3, 30 and 31 make the equivalent additions in Clause 3 for the LSC's adult duty and Clauses 31 and 32 for the CETW's main duties.

We have been aware, not least through Liberal Democrat amendments, for which we thank them, that some people have been confused not to find reference in the Bill to the LSC's wider remit, as set out in the Learning to Succeed White Paper for workforce development. Such, perhaps, is the nature of primary legislation: we had tested and were content that the Bill as it stood provided for the full range of the LSC's functions. However, we have been keen to respond to the concerns expressed. Amendment No. 20 provides that, at the national level, the LSC's strategy must set out how the LSC intends to develop the skills of people in the workforce. This reflects in the legislation what we have already set out explicitly in the LSC prospectus—that the LSC will have an important contribution to make to workforce development issues within its overall remit.

I shall return to this amendment in due course, once the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has had a chance to set out what lies behind her amendment to it. In the meantime, I simply say that I shall be able to offer her considerable assurances about how the LSC will work with higher education institutions in taking forward its workforce development proposals. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment on the basis of those assurances.

Amendment No. 201 is the result of a commitment I made during debate at Third Reading in this House to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. He said then that he was concerned with the, desirability of having on the face of the Bill a better balance between the duty of the learning and skills council to provide vocational education—education for work—and providing a broader category of education—education for life".—[Official Report, 23/3/00; col. 414.] Noble Lords may remember that I set out at that time the value that the Government place on enrichment and personal development activities, especially for young people, and the personal, family and community benefits they bring with them. I suggested that we might make the point more explicit by specifying that the young people's learning committee must advise the LSC on such issues. Amendment No. 201 will secure that. Its composition draws on the wording favoured by the noble Lord, whom I thank for his interest and commitment. I am not sure whether he is in his place.

Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are the results of further deliberations by the National Assembly for Wales following debates on the Bill both here and in another place. The National Assembly has concluded that statutory planning requirements should be a part of the post-16 reforms for Wales. Amendment No. 48 therefore introduces a new clause which imposes a duty on the CETW to submit to the National Assembly a plan for each of its financial years. A similar duty is placed on the LSC under Clause 15. The CETW's plan must be approved by the National Assembly, which will have the power to require alterations.

The new clause contained in Amendment No. 49 places a duty on the CETW to prepare a strategy which is equivalent to the duty on the LSC under Clause 16. The National Assembly may require the council to make alterations to the strategy. In this way the amendment provides for a valuable forward planning measure for the council as well as for the National Assembly to bring its overarching priorities to bear on the council's remit.

As I said in opening, in the light of the need to make progress—including towards groups about which I suspect noble Lords may have a good deal to say later—I do not propose to deal with the further technical amendments. I should mention also that I have already supplied a lengthy note of explanation of all the government amendments to both the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Sharp. I hope it goes without saying, however, that if noble Lords would find helpful an explanation of any particular amendment in this group with which I have not already dealt, I shall be happy to give one. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 12.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford

My Lords, as the proposer of the original amendment, I wish to thank Her Majesty's Government for accepting the principle of my amendment on Clause 2. I am delighted—as are others—that the Government have seen fit to give support to school sixth forms, which is what the amendment is all about. As the noble Baroness knows, they cost more compared to colleges but they give more in pastoral help. I am extremely grateful that, for the first time during my time in this House, the Government have accepted an amendment of mine.

Baroness David

My Lords, perhaps I may comment on Amendment No. 3. No one would want anyone to spend disproportionately, but can the Minister look forward to the day when Clause 3 will include an entitlement for all adults which is the same as the welcome entitlement for young people in Clause 2? If we had a goal to work towards in adult entitlement, we could look forward to life-long learning for all. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.

Lord Roberts of Conwy

My Lords, perhaps I may speak very briefly to Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 and to the other, what I call, Welsh amendments. Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 are two of the 16 new clauses relating to Wales that have been introduced into the Bill since it left this place. There are at least three others which partially relate to Wales, along with numerous changes in schedules and amendments which we shall come to later.

This is a very late stage for the House to have a first sight of some of these changes to the Bill, which, after all, began in your Lordships' House. Your Lordships' may take a somewhat dim view of this method of proceeding. Be that as it may, I thank the Government, civil servants and draftsmen who have clearly been working hard to remedy the worrying defects in the Bill so far as concerned Wales which were pointed out in Committee. The new clauses go far towards making up the paucity of Welsh clauses in the original Bill. We now have a more complete and workable measure for the National Assembly to implement in Wales. The gratitude I express now extends to all the changes for which we asked. I trust that any abstention on my part of any further acknowledgement will not be taken as a discourtesy but as a kindness to the House because we all want to press on.

I still believe that the regional structure proposed for Wales is not prescriptive enough. This lack of firm direction in primary legislation will give rise only to further dilatory discussion in the Assembly. It is very clear from our experience of the Bill in relation to Wales that there is a proven need for a protocol which specifies very clearly the various steps by which the legislative needs of Wales are translated through the Assembly to central government and this Westminster Parliament. The Government are well aware of that. A draft protocol was tabled in January this year, but here we are in July and the protocol has still not been finalised. I have at long last been able to obtain a copy of the draft, which may be a suitable subject for a short debate in your Lordships' House at a later stage.

The protocol should cover the relationship between the Assembly and this Parliament—and provide for a two-way flow of information—as well as the relationship between the Labour administration of the Assembly in Cardiff and the Government here in Whitehall.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford

My Lords, I was not going to speak until the next group of amendments was called, but I think it is appropriate that I should speak now to Amendment No. 20A.

I thank the Minister for her remarks about workforce development. She is right that during the Bill's progress through the House we pressed amendments for workforce development to be included within the remit of the Bill and on the face of the Bill. I am delighted to see that the amendments have now been included. Amendment No. 20 to Clause 16 puts in place precisely what we seek.

Behind the scenes, Mr Chris Humphries, who has been the chairman of the National Skills Task Force, has been talking at some length to the Minister and has had some influence in these matters. The final report of the task force was published recently and expresses concern about the overall development of skills in this country. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the higher education sector is included in the plans for workforce development.

This Bill focuses very largely on post-16 training and education which does not lead to degree level qualifications. But increasingly the distinction between further education, vocational qualifications and degree-type qualifications is becoming untenable. If we look to the future, we may see degrees increasingly put together on what I call a "mix-and-match" basis, particularly for mature students. Distance learning through the Open University and through the Internet will become an increasingly important part of further and higher education.

But we also know from our experience with the Open University that teaching within a small tutorial group is very important. Therefore, we will see degrees taken sometimes through Open University-type distance learning, sometimes through attending the local further education college and sometimes through attending the local higher education institution, with different parts of the degree being put together on a credit unit basis. I suspect that this is the way we shall see many degrees coming together in the future, particularly for mature students. But even without looking to the future, the higher education sector plays a vital role in training within the knowledge-based economy. We need to look to the model in the United States, where the universities are very much integrated into the local community. They work with their local community colleges and often form growth points within their local economies, both in terms of spinning off innovative new firms and in terms of training the high-quality workers for the high value added jobs. We feel that higher education must be integrated into the functions of the local learning and skills councils. We have put forward the amendment for that purpose.

3.30 p.m.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I shall respond to the points made by noble Lords opposite and by my noble friend Lady David and then come back to the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for what he said. I am grateful, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. He said that it was rather late for the amendments to come before the House. However, when the Bill was going through the House we said that we would make amendments in another place to improve the Bill. I am glad that he recognised that the amendments are improvements. I hope that he is wrong in his pessimism about how the National Assembly will operate in relation to his view that regional structures are not prescriptive enough. As to the noble Lord's point about protocols, it is up to him to raise the question of a possible debate in the House at a later date.

Perhaps I may respond to my noble friend Lady David. At this stage I am not able to make any commitment about there being an entitlement to adult learning. However, I shall certainly take away her suggestion, which may in the longer term be desirable.

I should like to respond to what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said about her Amendment No. 20A. Both Clause 16 and our government amendment to it are expressed in deliberately broad terms. The LSC will work with a wide range of partners and we would certainly expect that to be reflected in its strategy. That there is no reference to higher education institutions in the clause should not be a surprise, given that there is no reference to any of what will be the LSC's key partners. But that does not mean that the HE sector will have no role in relation to the LSC's overall remit or its workforce development activities in particular; very far from it.

We entirely recognise that higher education has an important role to play in the education and training of our workforce, not least because it offers an important progression route for those moving on from further education and work-based learning. In particular, we shall expect the LSC to continue the good work of TECs in encouraging the progression from modern apprenticeships to foundation degrees and vocational honours degrees in subjects such as engineering. It is only by addressing the skills deficit at the intermediate skills level that we can boost the supply of technicians and associated professionals, including at the higher levels, in order to increase our national competitiveness in the development of a knowledge economy. All this means that there must and there will be a strong and productive relationship between the LSC' and the HE sector.

That is why I am glad to say that the appointments to the LSC at both national and local level which we have announced include individuals with a strong interest in, and experience of, higher education. The national chair, Bryan Sanderson, is vice-chair of the court of governors of the LSE. His chief executive, John Harwood, is a member of the court of Oxford Brookes University. Of the 36 local chairs so far announced, six have been or remain involved with the HE sector in one capacity or another.

On top of this, and as we have already set out, the national LSC will invite to its meetings the HEFCE chief executive. That will further ensure that a powerful HE voice is present at the heart of the LSC's decision making. The national LSC will also draw together authoritative advice on skills supply and demand by convening, with the Higher Education Funding Council for England and other agencies, an advisory group of leading experts in the field of skills research and information.

Local learning partnerships will also be important as they provide a forum in which providers, including higher education institutions, can work together to fill gaps and improve quality. Universities and colleges are already involved in some 67 per cent of partnerships.

Finally, there will also be important collaborative work involving both sectors at the level of delivery. When illustrating this point in another place, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State mentioned the York Progression Partnership initiative which provides enhanced support to targeted HE and FE students in their first term and trains a team of "role model" students to act as mentors to FE students. He also referred to the Birmingham project which aims to open up access for Muslim women to higher education opportunities within their local communities, including through local FE colleges. We want more work of this kind, not less.

With those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will in due course withdraw her amendment and will join me and others in supporting the Commons amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, Motion agreed to.