Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 13 March 2000 vol 610 cc1373-432

8.44 p.m.

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 42:

Page 4, line 34, at end insert— ("() The criteria specified pursuant to subsection (3) above shall amongst other things take account of local circumstances.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 42 returns to the issue which the House debated before the adjournment in the context of an earlier amendment concerned with the powers of the learning and skills council in relation to funding issues. This amendment is related specifically to the requirement for colleges and other institutions to set fees and other charges according to specified criteria.

In his reply at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Bach, stressed the need for the learning and skills council to have flexibility and to exercise flexible judgments (as he put it) about the financial agreements that it needed to reach with providers. He rightly pointed out that the Further Education Funding Council dealt only with a relatively homogenous group of providers, namely the further education colleges, and that the learning and skills council would have a highly diverse group with which to deal. For this reason, the need for flexibility was all the greater. We do not deny that. However, it is precisely for that reason that we on these Benches tabled the amendment.

It has been put to us from a number of sources that, flexibility or no, the powers embodied in Clause 6(3) are considerable and give the LSC power to impose a fee structure on any provider, be it a college or other provider. Yet fees which might be acceptable in the south-east of England, where unemployment has fallen and incomes are high, would be wholly unsuitable in, say, Cornwall or Sunderland. For that reason we ask that the criteria which are specified in these cases should include local circumstances. It is vital that there is local flexibility. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, indicated in Committee that she would return to this issue and expressed concern that a national fee scheme could not work. National arrangements are already in place and operated by the FEFC in relation to fees for further education provision. For example, a national fee exemption policy applies to those who are unemployed and in receipt of benefits or to 16 to 19 year-olds who are undertaking full-time education. This amendment would obstruct those arrangements. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees that fee exemption arrangements for the disadvantaged and vulnerable should not be a matter for local discretion but rather national policy.

There is a range of areas in which the LSC will need to make assumptions about fee levels by reference to national criteria and local discretion may not be appropriate. There will need to be arrangements for the fees of home and overseas students and it is likely that those will need to take account of the national fees and awards regulations already in place. More particularly—this will be the subject of further consultation that is to start in May—the LSC will need to establish benchmarks against which fee levels can be established for the many thousands of programmes that it will fund. Against those benchmarks it must determine the level of public funding that it will provide where there is a case for a contribution from the student or employer.

Let me try to illustrate the point by way of an example. The LSC may determine that the proper cost of a particular full-time course is £2,000. It would set that as the fee level. If one assumes that for a particular type of provision 25 per cent of that cost should be met by an employer, then it would be clear and transparent that the LSC would pay £1,500. Establishing national assumptions about rates of grant and about fee levels will enable everyone to know what the starting point is.

Of course, nothing in Clause 6 would prevent the LSC from responding to local circumstances by providing an additional contribution if that were warranted. That is why local LSCs will have the flexibility to vary from national funding tariffs so that they can respond to local circumstances and needs. We think that it is essential that they have the flexibility to make proper allowance for the variation in costs associated with different groups of learners and skill types.

As I have indicated, we shall be conducting a detailed consultation on these and other funding issues in May. There will certainly be a role for the local arms of the LSC in responding to local circumstances. But the present amendment would inhibit the establishment of policies which, quite properly, should be set at the national level. I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. In some degree it conflicts with the evidence presented to us from a number of colleges. I need to talk again to them about their worries. We tabled the amendment because of worries expressed to us by those colleges.

The Minister assures us that the local learning skills council will have flexibility in its provisions. From her response, there seems to be sufficient flexibility written into the procedures. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I may wish to return to the issue later.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 [Funding of school sixth forms]:

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 43:

Page 5, line 11, at end insert— ("() In making a grant to a local education authority, the Council must take account of a maintained school's choice to provide minority subjects or to provide mainstream subjects to low numbers of students when the consent of governors and parents is established.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I return to the funding of sixth forms. Clause 7 states that the council may make a grant to a local education authority, and sets out the conditions. Clause 7(2) states: A grant made under this section may be made on conditions in addition to the condition mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above (including conditions of a kind which could be imposed under section 6)".

Clause 6 sets out, for the provider to charge fees by reference to specified criteria; … for the provider to make awards by reference to specified criteria;… for the provider to recover amounts from persons receiving education or training or from employers (or from both)".

I do not know whether that provision refers only to a place of work. These conditions do not appear to have a great deal to do with sixth forms. Clause 7 refers to "section 6". Clause 6 states that the conditions may, require the Council or a person designated by it to be allowed access".

Clause 6(3) states: The conditions may require a person providing post-16 education or training … to make arrangements providing for all or any of the following".

I could go on listing the conditions in Clause 6. However, I return to the theme of local flexibility, referred to earlier today. Where a positive decision has been made which parents and governors have accepted and supported to teach minority subjects or to teach subjects to small groups, that policy should be properly recognised.

The amendment deletes Clause 7(2) and replaces it with the following: In making a grant to a local education authority, the Council must take account of a maintained school's choice to provide minority subjects or to provide mainstream subjects to low numbers of students when the consent of governors and parents is established".

I hope that the amendment speaks for itself. I am greatly concerned that the conditions set out in Clause 6 are in addition to the condition set out in Clause 7(1)(a). I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, on Amendment No. 43 I remind the noble Baroness that under the new arrangements LEAs will still have the same direct interest in the planning of school sixth form provision as they do now. They will need to consider ways of providing a wide choice of options for pupils when doing so. Small classes are not the only or indeed the best way for schools to be able to offer minority subjects. Where a sixth form cannot offer sufficient curriculum breadth, or pupils are being taught in isolation, LEAs and schools will be able to explore other, more sensible, means of provision. This includes collaboration or co-operation arrangements between one or more schools with sixth forms or between schools and FE colleges. Such arrangements can help ensure that the widest possible choice of options is available and that school sixth forms remain dynamic and attractive to potential students and their parents. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree with me that that is something we should encourage.

The noble Baroness has expressed concerns about how the LSC would react to a decline in numbers in a sixth form, and has suggested that it might automatically seek to close such sixth forms. She has also said that the Bill could be a threat to small sixth forms in general. I want to take this opportunity to reassure her once again that there is no such threat. The LSC does not have the power to propose closure in relation to size, only in relation to quality. The Government are committed to maintaining a broad base of learning provision for 16 to 19 year-olds and within that good sixth forms, whatever their size, will continue to play a vital role. The Bill is in no way an attack on small sixth forms. But we have made a commitment to drive up standards, and that means that the Bill contains clear measures in relation to poor quality sixth forms, whether they are small or large. As I mentioned in previous debate, those sixth forms which are struggling to make the grade will be given the opportunity to turn themselves around. We do not, however, want to see sixth form pupils let down by weak provision, and high standards must be the aim.

For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment the noble Baroness proposes. It would cut across the need for LEAs to make sensible judgments about their plans for local provision and it would discourage schools from selecting cost-effective means of offering a viable and attractive range of sixth form provision.

Turning to Amendment No. 44, the LSC will have a wide remit to fund a diverse range of providers, and school sixth forms are at one end of that spectrum. For that reason, the powers to impose conditions of grant, as laid out in Clause 6, need to exist, or there would have to be specific reference to every type of provider within the Bill. I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that this would be unwieldy. However, under subsection (2) of Clause 7 we recognise the special nature of the grant made to schools and, in doing so, recognise the need for some continuity between the conditions of grant for pre-16 and post-16 funding for schools.

We are clear that LEAs will continue to make decisions, as now, as to the allocations to individual schools from their sixth form grants. These allocations will continue to be governed by regulations made by the Secretary of State. And we have said that individual schools may continue to vire money between their pre-16 and post-16 provision. Indeed, we have made clear that the overall system will work much as at present with the LSC providing funds to LEAs in the interests of coherence right across the post-16 learning spectrum. The conditions which the LSC might attach to its sixth-form grant to LEAs would not cut across any of that.

By accepting the amendment and leaving subsection (2) out of Clause 7, we would be leaving the door wide open for LEAs to receive or spend their grant without reference to entirely reasonable guidance or rules of propriety. The LSC might want, for example, to require that LEAs supply evidence on pupil numbers and related data for their areas. The council would be put in a position to check such data. Another example might be a condition that the LEA in question supplies the LSC with copies of the published budget statements relevant to each school with a sixth form. Those are the kind of conditions which support the Secretary of State's funding guarantees to school sixth forms.

I understand that the noble Baroness might be concerned about the council having undue control over LEAs, but I assure her that that will not be the case. The conditions which might be made under subsection (2) would be those which rightly attach to public funding in the interests of protecting its proper use.

The noble Baroness might want to bear in mind the fact that we have no intention of imposing conditions on sixth forms that have not been fully considered. That is why we are consulting widely and are in discussion with key partners on a number of issues related to sixth-form funding. We have not made those issues plain on the face of the Bill because they are not matters for primary legislation. However, we shall issue appropriate guidance when the time comes and I shall ensure that the noble Baroness receives a copy.

I hope that the noble Baroness will support the need to ensure that public money is spent wisely and with proper accountability, including in school sixth forms, and that she will not feel the need to press her amendment.

9 p.m.

Baroness Blotch

My Lords, I found the Minister's answer deeply worrying—even more worrying than at first. I thought that I was pretty neurotic about the provision, but there were many inconsistencies in the noble Baroness's answer. She said that the conditions would not cut across and that there was no intention of imposing conditions on sixth forms. She said that it might be necessary to provide information on pupil numbers and related data. My goodness, there is not a school in the land which does not provide such information! They state the number of pupils; their ages; their achievements in examination and at the key stages; attendance on any given day; the number in a class; the number of teachers available; and so forth. If the Minister is referring to information over and above that already provided specifically for sixth forms as well as for every other age group, it would be helpful to know tonight what that might be.

I have looked again at Clause 6 and find it worrying. The first part relates to access and checks on the technical equipment and the people who will be providing the courses. Subsection (3) contains the list to which I referred earlier about charging fees; making awards by reference to specified criteria; recovering amounts from people receiving education or training or from employers; and amounts to be determined by reference to specified criteria. None of that subsection can be applied to a sixth form unless there is an hidden agenda to charge fees and recover amounts of money.

Subsection (4) relates to disabled people. There are already requirements on local authorities to make provision for young people with disabilities. The statementing system, which we tried to have extended beyond the age of 16 outside schools, works extremely well in schools. Subsection (5) enables the council to require the payment in whole or part of sums paid by it if ally of the conditions subject to which the sums were paid are not complied with. It then requires the payment of any interest in respect of any period in which the sum was due to the council. Subsection (6) gives a definition of "disabled persons".

I find it extremely disturbing that the noble Baroness still defends the council's right to impose conditions and to relate some of them to Clause 6. Clause 7(1)(a) states: on the condition that the grant to be applied as part of the authority's local schools budget for a financial year". However, I would accept that as read. Ministers in this House and in another place have constantly said that schools will continue to be funded at sixth-form level as they are at present. Therefore, Clause 7(1)(a) comes as no surprise and I am pleased to see it as some form of reassurance. If money were given to schools and not used for the purpose for which it was given, there would be considerable worries.

But why have Clause 7 at all? There is not a school in the land which does not receive grant for the education of children; which is fully accountable through the inspectorate and an auditing system; and which is accountable to its governing body, its LEA, its parents and the Secretary of State. What on earth is Clause 7 about, other than giving the council the power to make the grant?

I can understand that, but the Minister prayed in aid that Clause 6 should apply. She gave no reason other than the provision of information, all of which is currently provided. She did not say what in Clause 6 might be pertinent to conditions which may be imposed—that word is used in the Bill—on sixth forms by way of funding; in other words, funding given on the condition that certain things must be done. It is incredible to think that there is further information in addition to that which is already provided by school sixth forms. Can the noble Baroness say what part of Clause 6 would be pertinent to sixth forms in future arrangements?

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I am a little puzzled by what the noble Baroness said. Her amendment relates to Clause 7, but we are going into great detail about Clause 6. Clause 6 relates to funds going to LEAs not to schools, so it is not pertinent to sixth forms. It is about LEAs.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell me why Clause 7(2) states: A grant made under this section may he made on conditions in addition to the condition mentioned in subsection (I)(a) (including conditions of a kind which could be imposed under section 6)"? I have read Clause 6, which appears on the previous page. It is not my doing; the Government referred to "section 6" in Clause 7.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, unlike the provision to which Clause 6 refers, the council needs a specific power to give funds to the LEA, because the LEA is not itself a provider. I believed that I had explained that we want to have consistency of funding across the whole of 16 to 19 education, and that is what this is all about. However, perhaps I can give the reassurance that I believe the noble Baroness wants. We shall not require schools to provide a great deal of additional information over and above what they already provide. However, it is important that the LSC can obtain from LEAs the information that it needs. It needs those powers in order to ensure that funds are properly spent.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, that was no answer. Again, the noble Baroness criticised me harshly for invoking Clause 6. Clause 6 is itself invoked in the paragraph to which I referred and which I wish to delete and replace with another paragraph. The noble Baroness gave not one single reference in Clause 6 as to what would be pertinent to the funding of sixth forms. The information which sixth forms are being asked to provide is all publicly available. I myself could probably provide it for most sixth forms in the land because, as I said, all the information, such as numbers of teachers and pupils, how many pupils there are in a class, how many groups there are and what subjects are being taught, is all publicly available. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]

Clause 8 [Links between education and training and employment]:

Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 45: Page 5, line 19, after ("of') insert ("appropriate").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 45, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 46. These two amendments relate to Clause 8 and apply to work experience. However, they pick up earlier discussions that we have had this evening about what is and is not appropriate and about the need for discretion in relation to age limitations. I do not wish to go over those points again.

However, in relation to the word "appropriate", I wish to stress once again the importance of proper guidance in these matters. Work experience is often seminal in the choice of careers; to put it bluntly, "any old work experience" will not do. It can be vital in helping young people to decide upon careers, whether for or against a particular career. I have known several young ladies who were besotted with the idea of studying veterinary science until they had work experience with a vet. Then they decided against it. Equally, having had a two-week session of work experience in the subject, my own daughter decided to study electronic engineering and subsequently went on to gain a first-class degree. Therefore, when appropriate, work experience can be extraordinarily valuable. However, inappropriate work experience can leave nothing but negative feelings which, in a sense, can be disastrous.

I believe that it is important to have the appropriate back-up facilities for work experience arrangements. Again, the Careers Service currently plays an important part in ensuring that appropriate work experience is available and in advising young people on the options available. Underlying this amendment are the same concerns that I expressed earlier regarding the degree to which the Careers Service will in future be available only to those who present problems rather than to mainstream young people with respectable GCSE results. By putting the word "appropriate" on the face of the Bill, we ensure that all the aspirations of the Minister will be met.

I shall speak briefly about Amendment No. 46. In Committee the Minister stressed that this clause related only to young people in school and of school age through such organisations as educational business partnerships. She stressed the degree to which further education establishments are already linked to the worlds of work and learning and believed that the work experience arrangements mentioned in Clause 8 were therefore unnecessary and did not apply. Nevertheless, there are occasions when such arrangements may be valuable. In Committee we discussed the needs of those with learning and other disabilities and how they might be catered for separately under Clause 13. I stress again the needs of those who slip out of mainstream education when younger and return to it in their early twenties. This clause simply allows for a degree of flexibility and discretion in its interpretation. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, as I said in Committee, I am afraid that I do not believe that Amendment No. 45 is necessary. It would be unreasonable for LSCs to secure inappropriate work experience opportunities for young people. That much is implicit within the provision as it stands. Statutory bodies must act reasonably. It really is as simple as that.

I move on to Amendment No. 46. I see no reason for Clause 8 to provide for those over the age of 19. Our intention in this clause as drafted is to maintain and develop existing initiatives designed to support young people's learning, to give them an insight into the world of work and to help them to inform their career choices. It is explicitly for young people of school age.

Such arrangements are already available for those over 19 in FE and for those undertaking training, where contact with employers and business is automatically an integral part of the course.

Employers, schools and organisations like Education Business Partnerships have worked closely over a number of years to ensure that a range of such activities is available locally to students. We are extremely keen to continue supporting young people through education business link activities. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.

Connexions, which will include careers advice, will be available in any event—and we shall return to that tomorrow—for all 13 to 19 year-olds and it will offer advice including, if appropriate, advice relevant to work experience.

9.15 p.m.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I cannot say that I am surprised by it. As she says, we shall return tomorrow to the issues of appropriateness and the Connexions service and we shall have some lengthy discussion on that at that point. It seems more appropriate for us to discuss it then. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 47: After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—

EXERCISE OF POWER CONFERRED BY SECTION 11

(" . The Council may only exercise the power conferred by section 11 in a case where it has reasonable cause to believe that the governing body of an institution is managing the affairs of the institution or discharging any duty imposed on them by or for the purposes of the Education Acts or this Act in a way which is having, or is likely to have, an adverse effect on—

1. (a) the quality of education or training provided by the institution, or
2. (b) the proper use of public funds under the administration of the institution.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 98. Those amendments are grouped with Amendments Nos. 84 to 86 and 102 to 104. I shall speak briefly to my amendments because I know that the Minister has tabled similar amendments. I have looked carefully at the wording of those amendments and I am not entirely happy with the wording of them.

It is important—and now the Government have realised that it is important—to have triggering mechanisms and good reason for acting against an institution where there is reason to believe that either something is going wrong in the management or provision of education in the institution or there is good reason to believe that it is likely to happen.

My amendment refers to, the quality of education or training provided by the institution, or … the proper use of public funds under the administration of the institution". Those seem to me to be the sort of reasons which should be established before there is any intervention. I am just a little bothered by the wording of Amendment No. 86, which links it with as yet unknown instructions which may be passed down from the Secretary of State. The amendment states, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Council … has failed to discharge a duty imposed by or under any Act, or … has acted or is proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of a power conferred or the performance of a duty imposed by or under any Act".

If one reads this Bill—but, of course, it applies to any Act—there are loose powers, powers which can be used in a way which is as yet unstated. One is concerned about what is behind all that.

The important factors in an institution are the quality of the education and training which is being provided and the proper use of the public funds, which is the real concern behind the Government's intention. That is honourable. I support the intention that, where abuse or misuse of funds is taking place, or is thought likely to take place, action should be taken. But I am worried about the wording of Amendment No 86. I prefer to reserve any further comment until I have heard the noble Baroness introduce the Government's amendments.

We support early intervention and the powers being used properly although, sadly, the powers which have been available to the FEFC in the past have not been fully used. That is to be regretted. It is extremely important that the institutions themselves know the conditions under which such action will be taken. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, in speaking to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I wish to speak also to the government amendments to Clause 25.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has returned to the concerns which she and others expressed during our debates on Clause 11 in Committee that the power available to the LSC to appoint additional governors, where there were concerns about institutions, was open-ended and had no trigger mechanism.

The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness would place restrictions on the use of that power. I made clear in our earlier debates on Clause 11 that the Government consider that there should not be any restrictions placed on the circumstances in which the LSC can make an early intervention, and our position on that has not changed.

We are clear that the LSC should be able to intervene at an early stage where there are concerns. It should not be constrained by conditions which could lead to the worsening of a problem. The Secretary of State and the National Assembly announced last year, as part of the revised accountability framework for FE colleges, that the FEFCE and FEFCW should be able to intervene at individual colleges by nominating up to two governors. Clauses 11 and 39 provide for the LSC and the CETW respectively to have the same capability but will provide for them to have the power to appoint up to two additional members to any college governing body as they consider necessary.

Noble Lords must bear in mind that there are already powers for the funding council to provide for additional members on governing bodies. We covered that matter in Committee. The present arrangements allow an unrestricted power to nominate additional members. The power to appoint simply ensures that there can be no delay or blockage before new members take up their new posts. I am a little puzzled as to why the noble Baroness is still concerned. We debated this clause thoroughly in Committee. Indeed, I was most grateful during that debate for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and the pertinent example he gave from his own experience on the then Polytechnics and College Funding Council.

Since that debate, my officials have met with the AoC. Its representatives said that they understand the reasons why the Government want to give that power to the LSC and why we do not want to constrain its use with unnecessary restrictions. They have made it clear that they no longer oppose in any way the clause as it stands. Professor Melville, at the FEFC, has indicated also to the department that he welcomes the power to nominate additional governors.

Perhaps the noble Baroness is concerned that the power to nominate will threaten the autonomy of FE governing bodies. I do not believe that it will. We are allowing a maximum of only two additional members. The minimum number on any governing body is 12 and in many cases it is nearer the maximum of 20. An extra two members will not, therefore, have an effect on the autonomy of governing bodies. As I have explained, the power will allow the LSC and CETW to intervene; for example, where they consider there might be mismanagement or potential mismanagement by the governing body or where there are signs that the educational provision at the college is failing. The councils must be able to do so before the problem becomes so serious as to warrant intervention by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was fully aware of that provision and she was extremely helpful in conceding the desirability to intervene in such circumstances. Any constraints on that power would defeat that aim.

However, there may also be occasions when a college wants to invite the LSC to appoint an additional governor to assist with a difficult situation or to provide specialist expertise. Restrictions on the use of the power would prevent the LSC or CETW from making that kind of appointment.

I turn now to the government amendments. During our earlier debate on the clause I promised to bring forward amendments to ensure that the Secretary of State could intervene if he felt that the LSC was using its power to appoint members inappropriately. The amendments which I propose to Clause 25 will allow any college which considers that the LSC, in appointing additional governors, is not acting appropriately to take the matter up with the Secretary of State who, if he agrees, may intervene.

Amendments Nos. 84, 85 and 86 will allow the Secretary of State, and Amendments Nos. 102, 103 and 104 the National Assembly, to intervene if the LSC or CETW fail to discharge a duty placed upon them by or for the purposes of any Act of Parliament.

Intervention would also be possible in the event that the LSC or CETW act or propose to act unreasonably in the exercise of their functions. If, for example, a college was concerned that the LSC had decided to appoint additional governors under Clause 11 without reasonable cause, they would be able to complain to the Secretary of State. If he agreed that the appointment was inappropriate, he would then be able to intervene and issue directions accordingly. Of course, this power of intervention will be more wide-ranging than this and will apply generally to all the functions of the LSC and CETW.

The amendments are clearly sensible in view of the wide-ranging powers of the new NDPBs. The Secretary of State has similar powers at present in respect of the FEFC and, indeed, over LEAs and governing bodies where they have acted or are proposing to act unreasonably in the exercise of their statutory powers. This approach follows current precedent provided for by the former government in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for, in a sense, provoking the Government to table amendments in this regard. They provide important clarification and will, I hope, address at least in part the concerns expressed in Committee by the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness is concerned that there is no qualification on the use of the power. The amendments introduce qualifications. Given that we will be placing a restriction on the power to appoint governors so that it may not be used unreasonably, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reconsider and withdraw her amendment.

Perhaps I may add that Section 496 of the Education Act 1996 gives the Secretary of State power to direct governing bodies, LEAs and head teachers if they fail to act in accordance with their statutory duties. We are simply replicating that approach in this power. The FEFC can be directed by the Secretary of State in similar circumstances, although the power of direction—Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the 1992 Act—is phrased a little differently but to entirely the same effect. I hope that that responds to the queries raised by the noble Baroness.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she can explain the meaning of the words in Amendment No. 86 which states: In such a case directions may contain such provision as the Secretary of State thinks fit as to the exercise of the Council's powers and performance of its duties".

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, the point I have just made refers to Amendment No. 86. The approach is taken directly from Section 496 of the Education Act 1996. It simply means that the Secretary of State can intervene if the council fails to act on a duty, not on a power.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I shall read carefully the words of the noble Baroness. It is comforting that the Bill now provides both a triggering mechanism and conditions under which the powers would be used. I believe that will be welcomed in Wales as well as in England. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 [Research and information.]:

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 48:

Page 6, line 28, at end insert— ("()The Secretary of State shall publish any request he makes under this section.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 48, grouped with Amendments Nos. 49 to 51, returns to the issue of performance information. When we discussed this before, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, made reference to the fact that some provision was entirely privately funded and stated that therefore it would be difficult to require this sort of information. My amendment therefore states that only publicly-funded education and training should provide such information.

As regards Amendment No. 48 it seems to me important that when asking for information, in the interests of open government and transparency, any request by the Secretary of State is made public so that the world at large, not least the institutions, can be privy to the information given in response to the request from the Secretary of State.

Amendment No. 49 provides that the council must publish annually information about the number of students in each age cohort obtaining any publicly-funded qualifications approved under Section 90. That seems to me to be straightforward. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Again, Amendment No. 50 states: The Council must publish annually information about the number of students in each age cohort working towards any publicly-funded qualification approved under section 90". That information, working towards [and achieving] any publicly-funded qualification gives some indication of what is going on in institutions.

Finally, my Amendment No. 51 asks that, The Council must publish annually information about the number and percentage of people in each age cohort achieving each level of publicly-funded qualification approved under section 90, making due allowance for individuals achieving more than one approved qualification".

It is really an argument for making this public information available to all. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is not here. I believe that he was equally interested in information. I noticed that he was sufficiently cogent in pressing his case that he gained a concession from the Government. I beg to move.

9.30 p.m.

Lord Bach

My Lords, Amendment No. 48 was tabled at Committee stage. I made it clear at the time that while we are fully committed to the principle of open government, due regard must be paid to ensuring the privacy of personal and commercially important policy information. That remains the case. It may not always be appropriate for the Secretary of State to publish every request; for example, if the request related to future expenditure or other commercial-inconfidence information. That is why we cannot accept the amendment as it stands.

Amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 51 are similar to amendments discussed in Committee. I undertook to consider any amendments that the noble Baroness tabled in the light of that debate. She has tabled amendments which refer only to provision which is publicly funded. I assure her that these amendments have been considered with care, as promised. But I will disappoint her when I say that the Government remain of the view that the existing provision is sufficient.

We agree with the noble Baroness's intention that achievements in post-16 learning should be monitored and evaluated, and we certainly intend that the LSC will be required to publish information at both local and national levels. But we do not require these provisions in primary legislation. Our guidance will allow us to ensure that the LSC publishes information to these and other ends. We suggest that that is a more appropriate means than the provisions in primary legislation that the amendments propose.

The noble Baroness's amendments are very specific about the information required and relate to a diverse range of circumstances in which external qualifications approved under Clause 90 of the Bill will be funded not just by the LSC but LEAs and other specified public funding bodies. We do not believe that bringing together the information in such a way will tell us very much that is of value. Nor will it provide a suitable alternative to existing measures of achievement such as the secondary and 16–18 performance tables or the measures of progress against the national learning targets for adults and young people. It will certainly be more than the LSC will need for financial and management purposes. We believe that we would therefore risk adding to the reporting burden on employers and institutions in order to obtain information that would have limited value. By having these requirements in primary legislation, we would be forsaking any flexibility to meet information needs which may change over time.

Moreover, the specification of the sort of information we will expect the LSC to publish is being developed now as part of the quality framework for the LSC and will be the subject of public consultation after Easter. It is therefore too early to say what these requirements should be.

Although we might expect some of the information referred to in these amendments to be gathered, the specific statutory requirements proposed would anticipate the outcome of the consultation and might not be compatible with changing information needs. Together with our earlier assurance that we will indeed be requiring the LSC to publish information, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I accept the explanation of the Minister in relation to Amendment No. 48 and pass on to Amendments Nos. 49 to 51.

In relation to those three amendments, I regard the knowledge of how many young people gained a qualification, how many were working towards a qualification and how many young people as a percentage were achieving levels of publicly-funded qualifications as being basic information, some of which is already in the public domain. I would be somewhat reassured if my understanding of what the Government said is correct. If it is not, perhaps the noble Lord will write to me.

I understood him to say that the argument between us was more about means to ends than the required information itself, and that the information would be subsumed in the guidance that would be distributed; that that information would be part of other information which would also be elicited; and that no one piece of information would be regarded as otiose in terms of what the outcomes were from publicly-funded courses.

Lord Bach

My Lords, I give the noble Baroness that assurance.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I welcome that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 49 to 51 not moved.]

Clause 13 [Persons with learning difficulties]:

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 52: Page 6, line 32, leave out ("and 3") and insert (", 3 and 8").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 52 and 99 and return to Amendment No. 54 when I have heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, says.

The noble Lord, Lord Rix, spoke very eloquently in Committee about the problems faced by disabled people in securing work experience. The issue may be as fundamental as having support in deciding which kind of work to try. He proposed extending the provisions of Clause 13 to include the LSC's powers in respect of work experience. I am happy, in Amendments 52 and 99, to meet his request and to make similar provisions for the Welsh Council. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will welcome the Government's response. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I can be extremely brief. In Clause 14 the council is required, in subsection (1)(a), to produce a report, As soon as is reasonably practicable [on] the progress made during the year in the provision of post-16 education and training for disabled persons; (b) the Council's plans for the future provision of post-16 education and training for disabled persons", and in subsection (2) to, send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State". I believe that it is only right that a copy should be sent also to the local education authority.

Lord Rix

My Lords, I supported the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in Committee when she raised the issue of the importance of work experience for learners who fall under Clause 13; in other words, those with learning difficulties and disabilities. I am delighted that the Government considered those arguments and are now seeking to amend the Bill.

This is one of those instances where a minor amendment could have a major long-term impact. The Government are dedicating substantial resources and applying innovation to encourage disabled people to work through the New Deal scheme, supported employment and so on. Work experience for disabled people who are in, or are about to leave, further education is a necessary corollary and I am delighted that this has been recognised.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth

My Lords, I too welcome this amendment and echo the words of my noble friend.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, in Amendment No. 54 the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, returned to a point that she made in Committee; that is, that the LSC's report on its provisions for disabled people should be copied to local authorities. I am afraid she will be disappointed that I have not changed my view since our last discussions. It is good practice and common sense for the LSC to follow the current arrangements of the FEFC and publish its report widely to many bodies, including local authorities. I would not want to pick out local authorities for particular treatment. But, more importantly, I do not believe that these arrangements should be a matter for legislation. I think that they are just common sense and a matter of normal practice now.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 53: After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

TRANSPORT PROVISION FOR PERSONS WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES

(" .—(1) The Council shall secure the provision of financial resources to persons providing transport to enable people with learning difficulties to participate in all forms of post- 16 education and training and such support must be made available for all who would find it either impossible or unreasonably difficult to access educational and training provision without it.

(2) The Council must make and publish a plan for the delivery of appropriate transport services and support for people with learning difficulties.

(3) The Council may pilot dedicated transport schemes, in partnership with statutory and voluntary organisations, for people with learning difficulties up to the age of 25.

(4) In undertaking an assessment of the transport needs of people with learning difficulties and in establishing pilot schemes, the Council shall have regard to individual needs in relation to orientation and personal safety when utilising transport options, for example the prevention of bullying and abuse.

(5) Local learning and skills councils must secure the provision of mobility training requested by people with learning difficulties participating in post-16 education and training.

(6) For the purposes of this section transport includes—

1. (a) the use of public transport;
2. (b) the use of general transport provided by institutions, employers and training providers;
3. (c) the use of transport provided by voluntary sector providers;
4. (d) the use of private hire vehicles and other forms of private transport;
5. (e) the use of specialist transport provided for disabled people.

(7) For the purposes of this section recipients of financial resources shall include people with learning difficulties up to the age of 25 who have extra transport costs in accessing post-16 learning.

(8) For the purposes of this section mobility training includes enabling disabled people to access vehicles safely, orientate themselves on vehicles, travel in safety and deal confidently with the street environment.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that I shall not take up too much time on this amendment, because it is merely a redrafting of the wording of an amendment we discussed at Committee stage.

When we discuss transport provision for those with learning difficulties we are talking of a small group who actually need it—and such is defined in the amendment. It is for those who will benefit from the special support, particularly training.

This is necessitated by the fact that if one cannot reach a college, one cannot participate in education. It is as simple as that. It is a very basic part in the requirement.

This amendment is now drawn that little bit tighter so that only those who will really benefit from it are brought within the provision. We are not talking of vast numbers of people; at least, that is not the intention. If the wording is not perfect, I am prepared to give way on that. The intention here is to have a smaller group, so I hope that we shall not hear stories about too many people being brought in. If we cannot get people to these colleges, they cannot attend. They cannot do the course. It is as simple as that. Their education will not exist.

I have been given various case studies. One case was of a girl who had learning disabilities who was inclined to give everyone a big hug when meeting for the first time. She became very excited and stammered very badly when she spoke to people. One can imagine this combination for a person without training who is having to deal with the bus service. The amendment would give to local authorities—for those people involved—the ability actually to deal with these problems through training. It is a very basic step we are taking. I hope that the Government will be able to say something very positive. I beg to move.

Baroness Darcy de Knayth

My Lords, when on 10th February, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, withdrew his previous wider-ranging amendment, he urged us to go away, rack our brains and to come back with something else that would solve the problem. These two amendments are an attempt to do that. I should like to support both the amendments. I am more enthusiastic about Amendment No. 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, because it is wider. It would help all disabled learners who otherwise could not, or only with unreasonable difficulty could, access an educational and training position. It is tighter than the previous amendment, as he said. I hope that it will be acceptable to the Government.

I have added my name to Amendment No. 67 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Baker. He apologises for not being present. He has asked me to speak briefly to it. He said that he would not move the amendment when the time came. It is a more pragmatic attempt to obtain half a loaf that would catch all young disabled learners in real need of help and would exclude those not in such great need. It is only half a loaf because it does not cover adult, older lifelong learners. Certainly, I hope the Minister may look kindly on Amendment No. 67 if she cannot accept the wider-ranging Amendment No. 63, and that she will acknowledge that more would still have to be done.

I know the Minister is very keen that disabled learners should be able to make the most of the educational opportunities on offer and is very aware that transport provision has long been a thorny problem and still does not work as well as it should. This Bill offers great opportunities to disabled learners. It has been strengthened today by the most welcome amendments, Amendments Nos. 55 and 100, which deal with the duty to promote equality of opportunity. One of the definitions of an opportunity is an occasion offering a possibility. It has to be within reach. I do not think that Tantalus would have described the bunch of grapes beyond his grasp as a gastronomic opportunity. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply she can accept Amendment No. 53 or Amendment No. 67 or can at least offer some positive solution so that the educational opportunities in the Bill can be grasped by disabled learners and do not remain an unobtainable dream.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Rix

My Lords, as I mentioned at Second Reading, learning to travel independently can make a tremendous difference to the life of a student with a learning disability. That applies even to those with a profound, multiple disability who may well require different forms of transport—private transport arrangements. They, too, need to be equipped with the skills to use transport. It is an interesting fact that 20 years ago the BBC and I dwelt on this point when we presented the programme "Let's Go" for people with a learning disability. Twenty years later, we still do not have it right, although I am happy to say that in her letter to me the Minister has given an assurance that the learning and skills council will use its powers to secure the future provision of mobility training. I hope that will be added to the necessity for life-long learning.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, the Minister has sent a helpful letter on transport. It refers to the difficult dilemma facing local authorities to which the Minister referred at our previous meeting. The first paragraph of the letter refers to the trials of the education maintenance allowance and to the new pilots, which will involve the additional integrated issue of providing transport for disabled students. There is hardly enough in the education maintenance allowance budget anyway. If the new pilots are to subsume yet another task, I should like to know from the Minister whether there will be additional funds.

In the top paragraph on the next page of the letter, the Minister says that she intends to provide learning partnerships with specific guidance on how they might tackle the provision of transport. Again, the issue will be money. It will not be will. The will almost everywhere, including among local authorities, is very much to do just that. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is fundamental. If a person is assessed, and if the provision is made but the person cannot get to where he wants to go, the provision is worthless. The issue will be one of finance; and not of discussing this with learning partnerships or of having joint reviews with a single budget—the education maintenance allowance budget—and tacking on to that the whole issue of providing transport for disabled people.

I have no quarrel with the Minister. She has been helpful in setting out some of the problems; but some of the ways forward sound more aspirational than practical.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have spoken for their support for the Government's response so far. There are points which T could make about the detail of the amendments, but instead I want to concentrate on the central issue: how best to provide transport for students with learning difficulties. The amendments suggest that responsibility should be transferred to the LSC. I believe that students' needs will be best served if the lead responsibility for post-16 student support remains with LEAs.

There are three reasons for that. First, LEAs often do a good job in ensuring that transport is available for people with learning difficulties who need it.

Secondly, LEAs are responsible for arranging transport for pupils under 16 and will remain so even if the amendment is accepted. We could then have something of a mess: buses being laid on for school pupils by one organisation and quite separate provision being made by another organisation for students attending a neighbouring sixth-form college.

Thirdly, local authorities are responsible for the overall transport arrangements for their area and they take account of the interplay between the needs of students, shoppers, commuters and so forth. To take out any one of those components and give it to another party does not make a great deal of sense. If either of these amendments were to be accepted, it is likely that a number of services currently provided by LEAs would cease to be viable.

However, although I believe that keeping transport with the LEAs is right, I am very much aware that we could improve considerably on the present situation. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee I mentioned that from next September we will be augmenting our trials of education maintenance allowances with new pilots to assess the value of a specific allowance to cover transport costs. My officials have already met disability organisations to ensure that the needs of disabled students are fully considered in the design of the new pilots. If successful, I hope that EMAs and associated developments will become the basis of a national system for the support of learners. We will continue to keep in close contact with disability organisations about these and other relevant developments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about additional funds. She suggested that EMAs are already oversubscribed and that more young people are applying for them than local authorities have been able to fund. Local authorities have not adequately been able to meet the demand. However, I can tell the noble Baroness that EMAs are new money. Additional funding of up to £40 week has been made available in these pilots. A great deal of resource is being put into this area.

In addition to these developments, I believe that further action in respect of both learning partnerships and the learning and skills council would bring about an important improvement in the situation for those people with learning difficulties who require transport. Learning partnerships bring together all the main local players, including colleges and LEAs. I expect them to plan jointly to make the best use of their combined resources for transport and I intend to provide learning partnerships with specific guidance on how they might tackle the provision of transport. Again, my officials will work with disability organisations to prepare this guidance for issue as quickly as possible. I hope that by disseminating and encouraging good practice we shall be able to create rather better local solutions than those which exist at present.

Noble Lords may already be aware that my officials have been working with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on research into the provision of transport for school pupils with special educational needs. In view of the success of this work, I think that it is now right to commission a similar study of transport provision for post-16 students. In due course, I hope that it will supplement the advice that we shall be giving to learning partnerships.

I recall from the debate in Committee that the noble Lords, Lord Rix and Lord Addington, were particularly concerned about the future provision of mobility training. In this respect, noble Lords will appreciate that we have taken care to ensure that the LSC will have sufficiently broad powers to make such provision, free from the uncertainty which has surrounded the FEFC's activities in this regard. As a result, the LSC will be able to use its broader powers to ensure that more people with learning difficulties are able to make use of currently available transport.

The LSC will be able to achieve more than the FEFC. For example, as a matter of course local LSCs will consult learning partnerships in drawing up their local plans. Where local LSCs identify gaps in transport provision, they will have the ability to commit resources to transport initiatives. Moreover, noble Lords will appreciate that the Government have substantially increased the resources for access funds, which will be made available by the LSCs to providers. The existing Access Funds Working Group provides an advisory forum for guidance on funding allocations, as well as covering wider strategic discussions about the use and purpose of these funds. The group is currently managed and chaired by the FEFC, but in the future this responsibility will shift to the LSC. I should very much welcome the participation of a representative of disability groups on the LSC's Access Funds Working Group, when it is established.

In conclusion, although I cannot accept these amendments, I strongly support the need to make more effective transport provision for people with learning difficulties. I hope that I have explained why I believe it would be a mistake to undermine the position of LEAs and that noble Lords will welcome the measures that I have outlined. I trust, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.

Lord Addington

My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking all those who have supported these amendments. However, I feel a little uneasy about the Minister's answer because, basically, its says, "Best practice. We will talk more and there will be guidance". I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, cast a very long shadow over that earlier today when he talked about duties and guidance and about what happens when and where. I have the same rather chill feeling running down my spine. I feel that some will do it well, while some will not; and some will interpret it, while others will not.

We will end up with that eternal situation that seems to happen to everyone involved in the field—namely, of going back and battling it out with your local authority. In some cases, where there are articulate parents who know how to work through the various organisations, they will get the right deal. That is something that all those involved in the disability lobby are heartily sick of seeing.

However, I thank the Minister for going as far as she could. Indeed, one should always congratulate someone on any advance, even if it is small. But it was not exactly storming through the barricades, though it might be a new entrenchment position from which to batter away. Having said that, I thank the Minister for going as far as she did go and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 [Disabled persons]:

[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 55: Leave out Clause 14 and insert the following new Clause—

EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

(" .—(1)) In exercising its functions the Council must have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity—

1. (a) between persons of different racial groups,
2. (b) between men and women, and
3. (c) between persons who are disabled and persons who are not.

(2) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year of the Council it must publish a report containing—

1. (a) a statement of the arrangements made under subsection (1) and having effect in the year;
2. (b) an assessment of how effective the arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity.

(3) The report must also contain a statement of the arrangements which the Council has made, or proposes to make, under subsection (1) in respect of the financial year immediately following that referred to in subsection (2).

(4) The Council must send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.

(5) "Racial group" has the same meaning as in the Race Relations Act 1976.

(6) Disabled persons are persons who are disabled for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.").

[Amendment No. 56, as an amendment to Amendment No. 55, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 55 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Plans]:

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 57: Page 7, line 31, leave out from second ("year") to end of line 33 and insert ("and which should reflect the education and training needs of each local learning and skills council area;").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 58. The amendment seeks to delete from Clause 15(4)(a) the words, in conformity with directions of the Secretary of State or with conditions imposed under section 27".

Again, we return to the constant theme of everything emanating from the Secretary of State. Indeed, this is a very seriously top-down, bureaucratic set-up. It seems to me that this is yet another part of the Bill where it would make sense to change the position to provide a more local focus. Therefore, I believe that the provision should reflect the education and training needs of each local skills area if it is to be a meaningful plan; in other words, in relation to local areas, it should not conform with directions from some stratospheric central government office. That is an important consideration.

Amendment No. 58 deals with where the information should go. It provides for the council to send a copy of the financial plan to the Secretary of State and to each local authority. I am mindful of what the Minister said when responding to my Amendment No. 54. She agreed that the local education authority is important, but asked what would happen about all the others if we put it on the face of the Bill.

The Government see fit constantly to refer to the Secretary of State on the face of the Bill. They also see fit to refer to the RDAs on the face of the Bill. However, given that local education authorities are losing so many powers to the LSCs—yet they will still organize the provision and be responsible sometimes for standards within the institutions offering the provision—they seem to be completely sidelined. Under the terms of the Local Government Bill, new obligations are being placed on local authorities with regard to the economic well-being of their areas. It seems to me quite incredible that in the Bill we are discussing tonight local authorities are not properly recognised. I suspect that yet again the Government will find some reason not to allow local authorities to receive a copy of the plan that I am discussing. I believe that as regards, the Council's financial proposals for the year, and in particular proposals as to how it plans to keep to its budget for the year", in the words of my Amendment No. 58, The Council must send a copy of the financial plan to the Secretary of State and to each local authority". I beg to move.

10 p.m.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, Amendment No. 57 seeks to remove the requirement for the national LSC's annual plan to set out how it will achieve objectives set by the Secretary of State.

The LSC will spend £6 billion of public money and it is only right that in formulating its annual operational plan it should set out how it plans to achieve the Secretary of State's objectives for this expenditure. The plans of local LSCs as provided for in Clause 22 will set out how they propose to discharge their responsibilities in the light of the education and training needs for their area. There is no need to replicate these plans in the national plan.

As regards Amendment No. 58, I am only too happy to reiterate what I said in Committee: the LSC will publish its annual operational plan for anyone who wants to read it by making it available on the Internet. It is an unnecessary provision to specify that hard copies have to be sent to each and every local authority in England. I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel the need to press the amendments.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that this is very much a locally focused arrangement providing locally effective services to meet the needs of local areas because, as I said, everything emanates from the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness has just said that if the Government are providing this large sum of money, everyone must do what the Secretary of State dictates. I understood that there was to be a considerable amount of local autonomy in this matter. However, I was clearly wrong in that and my suspicions were clearly right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]

Clause 18 [Supplementary functions]:

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 59: Leave out Clause 18.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, sent a helpful letter and a fairly detailed explanatory note on Clause 18, which I welcome. However, as so often happens, such detail begs even more questions. The noble Lord stated that the national learning and skills council, and in particular the local learning and skills councils, are to play a more important role in local partnership working than the current funding councils". That is interesting. Will that role be more important than those of the TECs, of local education authorities, or of local authorities?

In the detailed explanatory note that I was sent, as regards the sentence that the council may, acquire and dispose of land and other property", it would be helpful to know what constraints exist in that respect. Is it a totally open-ended permissive power to acquire and dispose of land and other property? What accountability would exist in that respect?

Paragraph (2)(b) of the note is headed "enter into contracts". In this paragraph the noble Lord says, FEFC contracts worth over £20,000 are normally listed in their annual report. As private companies TECs have entered into a variety of contracts with training providers, and others such as local authorities, and local partnerships involved in promoting training and employment". I understand the need to enter into contracts, but what public accountability will be available? Indeed, who is liable? Where does the responsibility lie?

The next paragraph is headed, invest sums not immediately needed for the purpose of exercising its other functions". Interestingly, it says: Public funds paid to the LSC will normally rest in a Paymaster General account until disbursed to providers. It may be necessary for some funds to be held in other bank accounts so as to be readily available for day-to-day purposes, e.g. petty cash. Such accounts may be interest bearing". Who decides the funds that are to be deposited with the Paymaster General and the funds that are to be held? What control will there be over the amount to be held? The example given is petty cash, but what other examples are there? As I said, what rules will govern that?

The note goes on to say: As private companies, TECs are able to invest any funds". Invest any funds in what? Stocks and shares? I shall ask a question about that issue later. It goes on: If the LSC receives funds from sources other than Grant in Aid it must be allowed to use these to the best effect, subject of course to standard financial control provisions applying to NDPBs, so as to maximise the resources available to secure delivery of its objectives". Again, how will it know when such moneys are available for investment and what kind of investments will be available?

Paragraph (d) refers to financial "gifts". What kind of gifts? Again, where gifts are received, what accountability will there be for the acceptance of them? There is a reference in paragraph (e) to "gifts ofland and other property", where the same points apply.

But the council has no power to borrow money. Interestingly, the TECs had power to borrow money. So what makes the councils different from the TECs in this regard? The TECs had a great deal of flexibility. Are the Government to argue that the TECs abused or misused their powers? I do not believe that that will be the case. But it would be helpful to know why the TECs, with their great flexibility, are being swept away, and why the LSC will not be given that flexibility. What will be the restrictions on the council? Can the Minister say how the TECs operated under these powers and whether there were any problems?

The council does not have power to lend money unless, of course, the Secretary of State consents. The note states: TECs have the power to make loans in furtherance of their objectives". Sometimes that is quite important. In the past loans have been made to training providers who have been experiencing short-term cash flow problems and to local partnerships or community groups where, for example, funding will be available from the European Social Fund but not until after set-up costs have been incurred". What will happen to those people in the future? TECs will not be around; they will not be able to do that. If the power is not to be transferred to the councils, what will happen to training providers experiencing short-term cash flow problems? Will they have to go through a bureaucratic procedure to the Secretary of State?

Paragraph (3)(c) states that the council will have no power to hold shares in a company or to become a member of a company. The note continues: Unlike the FEFC which had no such express power, TECs with their standing as private companies were able to set up subsidiary and associated companies. However, contractual conditions operate to ensure that public funds are not put at risk as a consequence of the organisation incurring liabilities in respect of any other company. Many training and enterprise councils have significant holdings in, for example, Careers Service Companies which may be jointly owned by the TEC and the local authority. TECs may also be stake holders in companies set up to deliver other government measures such as the New Deal. Where the LSC can demonstrate benefits arising from participation in another company the Secretary of State will not … withhold his consent". Again, the TECs did not have to go through this bureaucratic system. However, it looks as though the local skills councils will, making it a much clumsier arrangement. One wonders why a framework cannot be laid down within which the local skills councils can operate just as the TECs did. There are constraints: there is a great deal of bureaucracy; and there will be a built-in institutional delay. Regrettably, the powers of the TECs are not being replicated. I wonder why. I beg to move.

Lord Bach

My Lords, in a tour de force the noble Baroness has asked the Government a stack of questions. I cannot pretend that I shall be able to answer all of them this evening. I thought that it was a good idea to send her a letter. I am not quite so certain now. We believe that the letter set out clearly the points that really matter. So we are rather surprised that the noble Baroness has moved this amendment to have Clause 18 removed entirely. Perhaps it is a vehicle for her questions.

As we indicated in Committee, our starting point in framing these provisions has been the supplementary powers currently available to both the FEFC and the HEFC, as set out in the 1992 Act. I gave more detail in the letter, a copy of which is available in the Library.

The clause gives the LSC the powers it needs to acquire and dispose of land and other property, for example, computers and furniture, for its own use; enter into contracts with third parties, such as training providers and local authorities; hold small cash balances as petty cash and invest sums it may receive from sources other than grant-in-aid; accept financial resources other than grant-in-aid, for example, from the European Union or in partnership arrangements with the private sector; and accept gifts of land and other property from any other sources.

The council will have no power to borrow money because it will be a non-departmental public body under Treasury control—unlike the TECs which were private companies so no such restriction on borrowing could occur. However, the council, with the Secretary of State's consent, will be able to lend money. It is obvious that it might want to lend money, for example, to local partnerships or community groups where funding will be available from the European Social Fund but not until set-up costs have been incurred. Alternatively, it might help training providers who have been experiencing short-term cash flow problems.

The council will also be able to become a member of a company, again with the Secretary of State's consent. That is an important flexibility currently enjoyed by TECs which will enable the learning and skills council to play a much more important role in local partnership working than the current funding councils.

The LSC may need to use that power to take part in local economic development or regeneration initiatives where a company structure is helpful in levering in wider resources. But we should not regard such arrangements as being widespread or the norm, nor do we want the learning and skills council engaging in widespread commercial enterprises. That is why we have made the ability of the LSC to hold shares in a company dependent upon the approval of the Secretary of State. That is an important safeguard, as I hope the House agrees.

If the noble Baroness is serious in wishing to delete Clause 18 entirely, which she is not, I should then go on to talk about the necessity of the LSC being able to buy paper clips, A4 paper, tea and coffee and all the other attributes of a modern office. The whole point behind Clause 18, and subsection (1) in particular, is to enable the LSC to do what is necessary to carry out its functions as set out in Clauses 2 to 11; namely, the securing of education and training. As I am sure the noble Baroness accepts, Clause 18 is a necessary part of the Bill. As to liability and responsibility, that matter lies with the accounting officer of the LSC.

The noble Baroness referred to my letter and quoted the words, more important role in local partnership working than the current funding councils". The point that the letter seeks to make is that that is more important than the FEFC.

I promise to read in tomorrow's Hansard the series of questions posed by the noble Baroness and, if necessary, to provide the noble Baroness with answers in writing.

10.15 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

M y Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and look forward to another detailed missive. It is becoming increasingly obvious that it is a great pity that the TECs are to be dissolved. They have greater flexibility of operation than NDPBs. If the Government had any concerns about them they could have dealt with the matter by modifying or redefining their role. However, they have pressed on with all the flexibility that is now being removed from the system in order to put a straitjacket on the new councils. If business people are to become members of both the national and local councils as the Government intend, they will become frustrated, especially if they are the same people who come from the TECs. They will not have flexibility and will be constrained; and they will also have to deal with a heavy bureaucracy, resulting in delays. Those councils will be unable to keep good business people, and that is very regrettable.

If the only example that can be dragged up to provide a rationale for the volume of money to be held back is simply the need to buy tea, coffee, paper clips and one or two bits and pieces to keep the office going, that seems to be a pretty poor do, given that all other surplus money to which they do not have immediate access must be deposited. In the light of the fact that I shall receive yet another detailed explanation, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19 [Local councils]:

Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 60: Page 8, line 33, at end insert ("and a co-ordinating mechanism for the local councils established in greater London").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 60 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sharp. We return to the issue of London and the need for some form of co-ordinating mechanism. We had a fairly full debate on this matter in Committee. The special case for London was then fully made and accepted by the Government and others. In view of the time I do not need to make the special case for London again. Suffice it to say that London is by far our largest city. For the time being it will be the only city region that has an elected mayor and assembly with statutory powers to produce and implement a regional economic development strategy. It will have a single small business service franchise.

London covers by far the largest travel-to-work area in the country and yet it will be the only city in the country to have more than one local learning and skills council. The nature of London is such that the boundaries of the five local councils will be primarily administrative. On the whole, natural boundaries no longer exist in a big urban sprawl.

I believe that the case for some form of co-ordinating mechanism is made out. The only reason why the Government have accepted the need for five local councils within London is that by a narrow margin that was the recommendation of the London Development Partnership, with the proviso that there should be a strong co-ordinating body. I am in some difficulty here. The more I look at the role, functions and need for a coordinating body the more convinced I become that all this would be unnecessary if we simply had one learning and skills council for London. That would remove Ministers' fears about unnecessary layers of bureaucracy, the need for co-ordination and so on. But, surprising as it may seem, I accept that that is not where we are now. The Government have made clear that London is to have five local learning and skills councils. I think the Government have accepted the need for a coordinating mechanism. The Minister has made clear—I have some sympathy with the point—that she does not want another layer of bureaucracy and administration.

The purpose of the amendment is twofold. First, I believe that some reference to the need for a coordinating mechanism for London should be on the face of the Bill. I say that from long experience in London politics. I was an opposition leader on a London borough council in the years running up to the abolition of the GLC. I became, coincidentally, a London borough council leader in the month that the GLC was abolished. One of my many early duties on behalf of my party was to try to establish some method of running London in the post-GLC period. I remember that only too vividly.

It may be obvious to most, if not all, of us now that there needs to be some co-ordinating mechanism in London between the five LSCs; and that that is best left to them to sort out. In a properly ordered world, I am sure that is the case. But I remember 15 or so years ago a strong prevailing view in London that no such entity was necessary; that London was a collection of villages (rather large villages perhaps); that there was no such single entity as London and therefore any such coordination should be kept to the absolute minimum.

I realise that it is hard for the Government to contemplate, but there may come a day when they are no longer in power. There may come a day when the view which prevailed 15 years ago will return. Indeed, the choice on 4th May of the person I suspect is likely to be elected mayor may hasten that day. I believe it necessary to have the safeguard on the face of the Bill. There needs to be a co-ordinating mechanism. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, moved a detailed amendment about the nature, membership and purpose of that co-ordinating committee. I have deliberately not done so. First, I do not think that the Government will accept it. Secondly, I am not sure that it is appropriate.

However, the second reason for moving the amendment is to press the Government a little further on what they envisage the role of the co-ordinating mechanism to be; and how and when they believe that it will come into existence. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something of her intentions in this respect. I am aware that the London TEC and others are working out options and proposals for a light touch coordinating mechanism to respond to the Minister's recognition of the need, but concern to avoid another layer of bureaucracy. I know that the matter will be discussed by the London Partners group. I shall be interested to know when and how any such agreed proposals will be implemented. Do the Government envisage implementing them in time for the creation of the LSCs on 1st April next year; or do they intend to wait until the national and local LSCs are established and running so that those LSCs can determine the mechanism? In that case, the system is unlikely to coordinate until nearly half-way through the mayor's first term. That would be a serious setback for London, which is working reasonably well under the circumstances.

I move the amendment for two reasons. First, I want the safeguard of having the provision on the face of the Bill so that, if so minded, future governments cannot do away with the system without legislation. Secondly, and with a little more hope of success, I hope to receive from the Government a clearer and more up-to-date view of the exact role and functions of the co-ordinating mechanism; and when they envisage having it in place. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, we discussed the same amendment in Committee and I am afraid that I shall disappoint the noble Lord because I am able to add little to what I said in that debate.

The solution that the London Development Partnership recommended for local arrangements in London was, as the noble Lord rightly noted, five local councils with a co-ordinating mechanism to ensure that the pan-London issues were dealt with effectively. I am happy to reiterate that we accept the recommendation and I am equally happy to place on record my commitment to making the arrangement work in practice.

I have something in common with the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I, too, in an earlier life was involved in postGLC arrangements. In my case, it was trying to ensure that the ILEA, as it then was, was able to continue to operate and had in place the services which it had acquired from the GLC when the GLC was abolished. Therefore, I know what the noble Lord is talking about.

However, I do not believe that we need a provision on the face of the Bill to ensure that we have a proper coordinating mechanism. We have set out in the prospectus how we shall capitalise on the benefits of a strong national council and strong local councils. The Bill allows the council to delegate to local arms the appropriate powers and to establish other committees as it sees fit.

The light-touch mechanism which the London Development Partnership recommended, and to which the noble Lord referred, should be a matter for the LSC and its local councils to determine in order to meet London's needs. The exact form which the coordinating body in London will take has not yet been agreed. That will be for the LSC to determine, together with the five local London councils. However, we anticipate that it will be an internal LSC working group acting as a light-touch mechanism. I envisage the five London councils using it as a forum to agree common approaches to collective problems and then to inform the LSC's wider planning in London.

We also expect the London regional economic strategy to feed into the discussions of the group and the group to have a channel of communication to wider partners in the London theme. The boundaries of the local LSCs are not specified in the Bill. They may change somewhat in future. It is not inconceivable that the consensus might change and that the need for a coordinating mechanism might no longer exist. So there is no advantage in putting the provision on the face of the Bill. I am not saying that I anticipate such changes, but I am saying that if there were to be such changes, and if we accept the amendment, the situation would be inflexible and the law would have to be changed.

I hope that with my repeated commitment to ensuring that such a mechanism is effectively established, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Tope

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, but it has not taken us much further. I was aware of her experience in the ILEA, although I would not be so unkind as to draw attention to it. All I would say is, "Look at what happened to the ILEA". If I cannot convince her of the need for reassurance in the Bill, so be it. I am sad. She rightly says that there is no provision in the Bill for the boundaries of the local LSCs—I know and recognise that—and that circumstances could change and there may be no need for a co-ordinating mechanism. The only way in which that can occur is for the Government to make the right decision and to have only one LSC for London. In that case, it can coordinate with itself. The provision in the Bill may then be unnecessary, but it would not make it impossible to work. Therefore, I cannot accept her argument

I am not entirely surprised that the Minister was not prepared to put the provision on the face of the Bill. However, I listened to, and shall read carefully, what she said about the co-ordinating mechanism. My understanding is that the London Development Partnership did not ask for a light-touch co-ordinating mechanism, but for a stronger co-ordinating body. It has simply accepted that the Minister is not prepared to let us have that.

From what I understood of her reply, the noble Baroness suggested that the real work and the decisions on this matter will not get under way, and certainly will not be in place, until the local LSCs are up and running, working together and in a position to reach a decision on the best co-ordinating mechanism. As they do not come into being until April 2001 and it will be some time before they are in a position to make such decisions, I repeat my considerable concern that, whatever the coordinating mechanism, which we all accept is necessary for London, it will not be in place and operable until well into the first term of the GLA. I believe that we are missing important opportunities there.

I have made no secret of the fact that I believe we are making a mistake in the way that we are dealing with this matter. However, there is no need to make it worse. I urge the Minister to think a little more about trying to ensure that when the LSCs come into being in April 2001, as quickly as possible thereafter an effective coordinating mechanism is put in place. Thus, the learning and skills councils in London will be able to speak with a strong and united voice in what is likely to be a very lively and quite hard fought debate within London. If we have to wait for months—possibly longer—before they are in that position, I believe that they will get off to an unnecessarily bad start. However, this is not the time to pursue the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.30 p.m.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 61:

Page 8, line 36, at end insert— ("() Not less than 40 per cent. of the members shall include persons who have current or recent non-public sector business or commercial experience.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 61, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 62, 64 and 65. These amendments very much repeat previous ones. They concern the composition of the local skills councils. Again, I press the Government to place something on the face of the Bill both to recognise the present representation of business and commerce and, of course, to recognise some local democratic representation.

Secondly, I feel very strongly about Amendments Nos. 64 and 65. It seems to me that the national council will be relatively small. It will comprise between 12 and 16 people, one of whom will be the chairman and one the chief executive. Therefore, one is left with approximately 10 to 14 people. The idea that they should be members of the national council and a local council suggests that we do not have enough people to make a distinctive national council. They will, in any case, be very busy people, heavily involved in their business world or the particular worlds from which they come and from which they will bring their talents and expertise. It seems to me quite outrageous that they should have dual membership with the local skills councils. Therefore, I regard Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 as very important. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, both in respect of the national council and local councils, we have debated a number of times the merits of specifying in legislation the precise details of their membership. Nothing has made me change my mind that it is inappropriate to set out in legislation the proportion of the membership of a public body which should represent any particular group. I know from his comments during the Committee stage that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, shares my reservations about specifying numbers and proportions on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I reject the suggestion in Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 that we should specify any proportion.

That is not to say that we are drawing back from our commitment to seek to ensure through the appointment process that we have a membership in which 40 per cent of local council members are people from a business background. That is simply not the case. However, specifying that in law will only (if I may beg the pardon of my noble friend beside me) please the lawyers. With regard to Amendment No. 61, we have repeatedly made clear our commitment that at least 40 per cent of local council members will be people from a business background. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept our assurances on that.

There is a second aspect to Amendment No. 62 which I cannot accept. We do not want to give nomination rights to any body—to the GLA or anyone else. That would restrict the field of candidates and potentially diminish the quality of candidates. In the appointments process, we want individuals, as I said earlier in relation to the national council, who will serve the interests of the local LSC as a whole and not be representatives or delegates.

Some noble Lords claimed that there is a disparity in our approach to business and to local government. But let us look carefully at that for a moment. There is a real distinction between local authorities and businesses. Local authorities are statutory bodies which will have close working relationships with the local LSCs at every level. On the other hand, the business world consists of a multitude of individual firms which may have little or no regular contact with the LSCs, yet they represent a vital part of the demand side. That is why we have a policy of providing that 40 per cent of the membership of local LSCs should have a business or commercial background. However, they are not there to represent their own businesses but to bring with them their experience of the business world in all its many forms and interests. Similarly, we expect local councils to have members who understand the needs of local communities through local authority experience. Again, I am happy to repeat that here.

Amendments Nos. 64 and 65, about which the noble Baroness said she feels very strongly, seek to bar membership of a local council to any member of the national learning and skills council. As I suggested in Committee, having high calibre individuals who are members of councils at local and national level could promote co-operation, some cross-fertilisation of ideas, and enable the national council to have a better understanding of local concerns.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I regard dual membership as something which is not likely to take place very often and, indeed, as something rather unusual. But we do not want to bar or in any way discourage members of a local council, who may also have an enormous amount to contribute at national level, from becoming a member of the national council. Of course, in making such an appointment, the Secretary of State would have to be thoroughly satisfied that the individual in question had the time to devote to both responsibilities. But that is a standard criterion in any event.

In the light of those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I shall withdraw my amendment. As regards my amendments dealing with composition, I believe that there is now enough on the record for the Government to be held absolutely to what they have said about that. The business world, and indeed the local government world, will be looking very carefully at how that works out in practice.

I turn to dual membership. If I were appointing members to the national council, I should be deeply suspicious of anyone who was a member of a local council and also busy in his own right—because I accept that those people will be involved, in some way, in their own sphere. I should be equally suspicious of someone who was a member of the national council who then applied to become a member of a local council. I should be concerned about the amount of time that such people have to give and whether they were anything other than full-time committee gatherers. I regard that as not the most refreshing talent to bring to the national council.

However, I accept what the Minister said; namely, that that is likely to be a very rare occurrence, if it happens at all. I should like to think that that would be the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]

Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 63:

Page 8, line 36, at end insert— ("() In appointing members of a local council, the Council shall ensure that the majority are representative of different providers of education and training in the area, and of local authorities, and that all members shall have experience relevant to the Council's functions.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, like those amendments just moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, this amendment relates to Clause 19 and the membership of the local learning and skills councils. However, unlike them, it does not specify a proportion of membership. Indeed, it lays down very broad parameters for membership of the council.

As the Minister knows, on these Benches we are concerned, as we made clear in Committee, that local authorities should be represented on the council. After all, under the current Local Government Bill which has just passed through this House, local authorities have a duty to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area which they represent, and their members are elected to represent the local community. The Minister stressed that the local learning and skills councils should be driven by the needs of local communities and by the local economy. In that sense, the local authority has a community leadership role to fulfil.

When the amendment was discussed in Committee, the Minister said, We have already set out in the prospectus that we expect local LSC members to understand the needs of employers; employees, through trade union representation; local communities, through local authority experience; people who are disadvantaged or excluded, through voluntary sector experience; young people and adult learners; people with special learning needs, learning difficulties or disabilities; and people who face discrimination".—[Official Report, 10/2/2000; col. 849.] As she said, the aim as set out in the prospectus is that the councils should represent the views of both providers and consumers.

The amendment does not seek to be prescriptive. It is a general amendment. We are asking for local authority representation, but not for specific representation by a particular interest group. We accept what the Minister says; that the councils should be able to provide vision and leadership. As she says, that is set out in the prospectus itself. However, I should stress that the prospectus is not the Bill. The prospectus has no statutory status. It is aspirational and visionary. As many of us remarked during Second Reading, that vision, sadly, is not represented in the Bill itself. An amendment such as this offers an opportunity to translate a little of that vision into the Bill. For that reason, I beg to move.

Lord Bach

My Lords, I share the noble Baroness's surprise that Amendment No. 63 appeared on the Marshalled List in the second group of amendments which we debated earlier. I continue to believe that it would have been better to consider it in the context of the amendments dealing with local council membership which we have just discussed, but let us deal with it now.

I should like to begin by reassuring the House that members of local LSCs will certainly have the expertise and experience required to do their jobs and to do them well. The national council will be looking for no less in making its appointments and the Secretary of State will be looking for no less in approving them. I remind noble Lords also that all appointments to councils, whether national or local, will be carried out through open competition according to Nolan principles.

I hope that we have already made clear enough our approach to the representation of various interests on both the national council and the local councils. In terms of the amendment, we certainly agree that the views of local learning providers should be represented on the local councils and, as has been pointed out, we made that explicit in the prospectus. We have made it clear that we expect each local council to include at least one member with current local authority experience.

But the vast majority of those speaking on local councils should speak for the views of the consumers of the learning system; namely, individuals and employers. Therefore, we cannot accept the amendment, which could lead to our new system being dominated by the views and needs of providers. I know that a letter was sent by my noble friend Lady Blackstone to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, a copy of which was sent to the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has had an opportunity to see it.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford

Yes, I have.

Lord Bach

My Lords, I am glad to hear it. The letter sets out clearly what we say about the matter. It states, You ask for clarification of our intentions in respect of local authority representation on the Learning and Skills Councils. As the LSC Prospectus makes clear, and as I reiterated during Monday's debate, we would certainly expect national and local LSCs to have members who understand the needs of local communities through current local authority experience. But this is not a matter for legislation. All appointments will be made under Nolan principles. We want to appoint the very best people we can find to the LSC from the candidates who come forward. We want to ensure that all members serve the interests of the LSC as a whole, rather than be representatives speaking on behalf of individual organisations". That is a fairly sensible point of view to hold.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford

My Lords, I thank the Minister. I believe that is a sensible point of view. I regret the fact that so much of this is spelt out in the prospectus and not on the face of the Bill. It seems to me that there are aspirations here and it would be nice to see some of them reflected in the Bill. However, with that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 64 to 67 not moved.]

10.45 p.m.

Clause 21 [Guidance to local councils]:

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 68: Page 9, line 12, at end insert ("and in doing so must confirm the proportion of a local council budget which may be allocated at the discretion of the local council").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 21(1) states that in relation to each financial year of the council it must prepare guidance for each local council and in doing so, the guidance must set a local council's budget for the financial year.

There was much discussion early on in Committee about the degree of flexibility there would be at local level. If my memory serves me well, I remember Ministers arguing that there would be local flexibility. My understanding is that something like 10 to 15 per cent of financial flexibility was mentioned.

If I had tabled an amendment to codify 10 to 15 per cent on the face of the Bill, I expect that the Government would have said, "Absolutely not; this is not a matter to put on the face of legislation", and I would agree with that. However, I believe it is right to place an obligation upon the council in setting the budget, when producing the guidance, to confirm the proportion of the budget which may be allocated at the discretion of the local councils. I hope the Minister will find that an attractive proposition. I beg to move.

Lord Bach

My Lords, local LSCs will ensure that local needs are met through the LSCs' funding and planning systems. The national learning and skills council will allocate the vast majority of its funds to local LSCs. They will have discretion over the allocation of their budgets within the terms of the council's funding methodology.

We are currently consulting, through the funding and allocations consultation paper, on how the learning and skills councils' funding system should work and what sort of local flexibility would be required. But, as was made clear in Committee, local LSCs will make important decisions about how the LSC's main budgets will be allocated. They will be able to exercise discretion to vary the rate of payment set out in the national tariff. They might do so, for example, where they think that is necessary to address shortages of good quality training for skills which are in particular demand.

We expect the allocation of resources at local level to follow the pattern of demand by learners. We have also said in the prospectus that the local LSCs will also have substantial discretionary funding which will amount to around 10 to 15 per cent of the overall funding for the learning and skills council. Local learning and skills councils will have a still greater degree of discretion over their allocation. These funds will support activities such as workforce development and improving access to learning and support for the regeneration of local communities. In those ways, local councils will enjoy different amounts of discretion according to the nature of particular activities.

We believe that it would be impracticable to quantify this in a simpler way—simple in the best sense—as the noble Baroness seeks to do. I would therefore ask her to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I find that deeply disappointing. Clause 21(3) states that: The guidance must set a local council's budget for the financial year". If a council is setting a specific local council's budget as stated in Clause 21(3)—not across the board—a great deal will be known about that budget unless it is to be so broad brush and crude as to make no sense at all. If it is to make sense at local level there should be some understanding of how much of that allocation is reflecting both what the national council deems it should do with the money and how much flexibility and discretion it will allow the council over the percentage of that allocated budget.

For the Minister to say that it is not possible to go into that kind of detail means that it will be impossible to determine whether it will be between 10 per cent and 15 per cent. It is important to know at the time of allocation whether it is 10 per cent or 15 per cent. I do not see it as an onerous obligation to have on the face of the Bill that when the guidance sets a local council's budget it should make some reference to the amount of flexibility to be allowed at local level.

Lord Bach

My Lords, the noble Baroness asked for confirmation of the proportion of a local council's budget. We do not say that that is impossible; rather, it is much too inflexible to confirm the proportion as a percentage figure. That would be inflexible and against the way in which this matter is intended to work.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I was in local government long enough to know that, if government said that there was a great deal of flexibility at local level, I was always in a position to say that there was none if that was the situation because everything I had to do was so prescribed that there was not room to exercise local discretion.

The Government have said quite unequivocally that there will be local discretion between 10 per cent and 15 per cent. I assume that is as regards its budget allocation. If it is to be between 10 per cent and 15 per cent of the budgeted allocation, then it seems only fair at the time of allocating it that it is given some indication as to how much of it is prescribed—in other words, what percentage will there be over which local discretion will apply. That appears to be entirely logical. The only time at which that can be ascertained from the national council is when budget allocations are given to local councils. I see no difficulty there at all. The Government are copping out, if I may use a colloquialism.

On Question, amendment negatived.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 69: Page 9, line 13, leave out ("the regional development agencies and").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be very brief as regards this amendment except to put right something said at Committee stage. In the time between the two stages of the Bill I have yet to do something about it. I never enjoy reading Hansard after I have been speaking. I particularly did not enjoy reading the first paragraph of what I said that evening. I have yet to check the tapes. At col. 860 of the Official Report on 10th February, when referring to regional development agencies, I am alleged to have said, a long time ago, it was the policy of our Benches that there should be unitary authorities at local level". I referred to the fact that I was not talking about parish councils, but district councils. Indeed, that is what happened. In parts of the country, district councils became unitary authorities and the county councils were dissolved.

My mistake is that I went on to say that we agreed that county councils should go and that there should be regional elected bodies. I belong to a party which has never agreed to regional elected bodies. The Minister is looking worried.

Lord Bach

My Lords, I can do no other than to say that my understanding of what the noble Baroness said was precisely the opposite of what appears in Hansard. At times the noble Baroness could hardly get out the words "regional development agency", if I may use that expression, because she seemed to be so against them. Indeed, I believe I queried her party's policy on that issue during the course of the debate, so I am with her on this.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am greatly relieved because I only read this two nights ago and had one or two nightmares that the Government were building up a wonderful retort as to how I changed my party's policy on the hoof. It is interesting that nobody in my party picked it up and I have yet to receive the phone calls asking what I am up to.

Perhaps I can make it clear—the Minister helps me in doing that—that we do not agree with regional elected bodies. It is my recollection that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who was involved in the debate at that time, was very much a supporter of regional elected bodies and, at the same time, of unitary authorities at district level replacing county councils.

Having got that off my mind, perhaps I can say briefly that it will come as no surprise that I do not believe that there is a hidden agenda. There is now a fairly overt agenda; the paving is well in place for removing local authorities. Indeed, I have it on good authority that a person in No. 10 is alleged to have said that before we are much older, local education authorities will disappear.

All the way through the Bill one can see the downgrading of local education authorities and local authorities, and the building up of regional development agencies. This will be almost only a stepping stone away from completing the process. I therefore seek to remove references to regional development agencies. I beg to move.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 70 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tope.

Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, we do not want to see the elimination of regional development agencies; nor do we at the moment suspect that an unholy plan is arising from No. 10, although on occasion we have doubts about what is happening there.

Amendment No. 70 relates to Clause 21 and in particular to the question of who the proposed learning and skills council should consult in setting the guidelines that it is to prepare for local councils. Subsection (4) suggests that it should consult regional development agencies and local education authorities on such guidance. The amendment proposes that the council should also consult some of the providers of education and training in the area.

It seems logical that, given the role of colleges and other specialist providers such as the Careers Service in an area, in setting guidelines such consultation should take place. We are not suggesting that the council should consult every provider but that on occasions it should consult some of the providers. It seems to us to be a perfectly reasonable amendment.

Lord Bach

My Lords, this is a fascinating debate for late at night and I do not intend to comment about the future in relation to local government. The noble Baroness is making many assumptions and I am not surprised at her concern at being so gravely misquoted in Hansard bearing in mind her strong feelings. I should still like to know whether it is her party's view as well as her own that regional development agencies are a waste of time and should not exist. It would be interesting to know; perhaps we are entitled to know.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. We have an aversion to elected regional government. I believe that what we have in this and other Bills are pavers for regional elected government.

Lord Bach

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making the position crystal clear.

We believe it is right that regional development agencies should be involved in shaping the national LSC's guidance to its local arms, as well as in working closely with the LSC in all sorts of ways. After all, an RDA has a statutory duty to, enhance the development and application of skills relevant to employment in its area". What closer connection could there be to the learning and skills council than "skills"?

It is accepted that there are certain trends and factors which are plain, wider geographical areas than either local authority or local LSC areas. These factors and trends cross boundaries in determining, for example, economic growth. That is why this Government established RDAs. That is why we believe that close working between RDAs and the LSC will be for the benefit of everyone, individual learners, employers, local economies and communities.

Local LSC areas will not develop in splendid isolation from one another. When making their recommendations for local LSC boundaries, the RDAs did of course reflect issues of economic activity and development. However, as I have tried to set out briefly, some such issues are wider. It is only by engaging at both local and regional level that the full potential of any one area will be released. We cannot accept the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, as I do not think that she will be surprised to hear.

Amendment No. 70, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, deals with the issue of the national LSC consulting providers on its draft guidance. We want to establish a coherent and streamlined system in which key partners and stakeholders can speak authoritatively on the wide range of interests relevant to the planning and funding of post-16 learning. Clearly, providers of post-16 learning—to whom we assume this amendment is intended to apply—are one such group. They will have important contributions to make at both national and local level. To specify them on the face of the Bill as proposed would be less than meaningful. We ask the question: which providers should the national LSC consult—all several thousand of them or some at random? I assure the noble Baroness that we do not require this amendment to ensure that the LSC takes account, as it will, of the views of learning providers. I hope that on that basis neither of the amendments will be pressed.

11 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am disappointed, as always, but I did not expect to get very far with these proposals. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments No. 70 and 71 not moved.]

Clause 22 [Plans of local councils]:

[Amendment No.72 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 73: Page 9, line 23, at end insert ("which must reflect the skill needs of the local labour market").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, although Amendment No. 73 is grouped with Amendment No. 74, I shall not be moving it. I think that a rogue amendment crept in—two versions of the same amendment. Nevertheless, the meaning is well known. Clause 22 provides that, A local council must prepare a plan for each financial year of the Council". That plan must include a statement of the needs regarding education and training of the population of the local council's area. I have added the words, which must reflect the skill needs of the local labour market". If there is to be this match between the needs of people—the whole thrust is to make sure that the business and commercial needs are properly met—there needs to be some reading of those. If there is to be any meaningful plan, it must regard both sides of that same coin. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, on Amendment No. 73, I start by reminding the House of the Government's own Amendments Nos. 22 and 37 to Clauses 2 and 3. As has already been discussed, those amendments address the concern expressed in Committee that the Bill should make plain that the LSC's provision should take account of the skill needs of particular sectors of employment. Amendment No. 73 seeks to require that local LSC plans reflect the skills needs of the local labour market. The amendment is simply not necessary. The current provision in Clause 22(2)(a) requires the plans of the local council to include a statement of the needs of the population of its area. The population of a local area includes employers. The needs of the population of a local area include those which relate to the context of the local labour market. A local LSC would simply not be meeting its duty to plan for the needs of the local population if it failed to plan for provision to meet the skill needs of the local labour market. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will not feel the need to press her amendment.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, it is again unfortunate that only one side of this coin is being recognised by the Government. Somehow or other it is important to mention one but not to reflect the other. That is unfortunate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 75:

Page 10, line 1, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— ("(b) any strategy prepared by any relevant local authority under section 4(1) of the Local Government Act 2000.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 75 refers back to Clause 22 under which the local council must prepare a plan. There are many conditions and criteria for preparing that plan. But it must have regard to, any matter contained in guidance issued by the Council under section 21 (in addition to the matters mentioned in subsection (2) above". The clause goes on to say that it must have regard to, the strategy prepared by any … regional development agency". We are back to regional development agencies. So it will come as no surprise to noble Lords opposite that I wish to see that provision removed from the Bill.

I believe that the local council should have regard to any strategy prepared by any relevant local authority under Clause 4(1) of the Local Government Bill. I am not the only one. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred earlier to the read-across between this Bill and the Local Government Bill. There has not been any serious joined-up thinking about the impact of this Bill and the other Bill and the way in which they interrelate. It is important that in any planning strategy there should be proper recognition of Clause 4(1) of that Bill.

Amendments Nos. 75, 78, 79, 81 and 82 deal with removing references to regional development agencies from the Bill. I beg to move.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill)

My Lords, I must remind the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 76 and 77.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, in addressing this group of amendments I shall speak first to the government amendments and then respond to the amendments from the noble Baroness.

In Committee the noble Baroness proposed that the local LSCs should not merely consult local education authorities when preparing their local plans, but all local authorities in their areas. That was in recognition both of the wider concerns for development issues which local authorities might have and their greater strategic role. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, proposed that in consulting local authorities the local LSCs should also take account of the new strategic plans which local authorities will be preparing under the powers contained in the Local Government Bill currently before the House. I agreed that such changes would offer useful improvements to the Bill and the government amendments, Amendments Nos. 77, 80 and 83, give effect to that commitment. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the amendments deliver the more positive aspects of her own amendment, Amendment No. 75, and that she will feel able to withdraw it. I note, however, that her amendment would also remove any requirement on the local LSCs to have regard to the RDAs' strategies. The Government believe—the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear this—that that would be a retrograde step for the reasons set out when we debated the issue in Committee.

Amendment No. 76 makes a necessary change to the provision requiring local LSCs to have regard to the strategy prepared by RDAs in order to take account of the new arrangements in London. Without this change we would actually exclude London from the scope of this provision, which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, would find very regrettable, as would I.

When the noble Baroness brought forward in Committee amendments similar to Amendments Nos. 79, 81 and 82 she recognised that she would not win many friends in the House. I simply repeat that we cannot ignore the important statutory role that RDAs fulfil and continue to have in identifying skills needs. RDAs' economic strategies are a milestone in the Government's regional development agenda because they provide the framework for identifying skills needs which are essential for the prosperity and sustainable development of their regions. In practice this means that local LSC priorities and plans need to be consistent with RDAs' regional and sub-regional economic strategies.

RDAs also have an important strategic role in helping to ensure that the new planning and funding arrangements meet the challenges of the knowledge-based economy and address the legacy of low skills and disadvantage that many individuals, communities and regions face. This means that local LSCs and RDAs will need to work closely together to share information and economic assessments and ensure that funding decisions taken by the LSC and the RDA are complementary.

I turn finally to Amendment No. 78. I am sorry to have to disappoint the noble Baroness by telling her that I am no more persuaded by her proposals for the local LSCs to have regard to the LEAs' education plans than I was when she made the proposal in Committee. Quite apart from the problem of definition and our reluctance to include more complexity in the planning arrangements, I simply believe that it is unnecessary. The Bill already includes obligations on local LSCs to include in their plans the education and training which LEAs will secure and to consult them in preparing those plans. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the provisions for close co-operation and consultation are more than sufficient to secure the necessary linkages that we all want to see.

I hope that, with these assurances, the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment and support the government amendments when I come to move them.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, local government will not be much comforted by that. The LSC will not need to have regard to the local authority plan under the Local Government Act 2000. That seems to me to be absolutely monstrous. Indeed, the command and control nature of this Bill is almost Maoist in its style. There are directions from the Secretary of State, the national council and the regional development agencies. What flexibility will be left at local council level? All will be order, command and conformity with no room left for flexibility.

There is even a reluctance to match the words, "There will be 10 to 15 per cent financial flexibility". When it comes to asking whether the national council will prescribe that when they come to draw up the budget, the answer is, no, they will not.

A great many people outside this House will be mystified by some of the wording that appeared in the prospectus and the rhetoric that has been used, and the manifestation of the actual words used in the Bill. They reveal a total reluctance on the part of the Government even to reflect on the points that have been made about the importance of having flexibility for local services providing skills needs for local companies and recognising the new duty which has been placed on local authorities in a Bill which has only just gone through Parliament. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said earlier, they have a new duty to be concerned about the economic well-being of their local areas, but they will not have the wherewithal or the flexibility to influence that duty in any way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 76 and 77:

Page 10, line I. leave out from ("strategy") to end of line 2 and insert ("of any relevant regional development agency prepared under section 7 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 or published under section 7A of that Act").

Page 10, line 2, at end insert— ("(c) any strategy prepared by any relevant local authority under section 4 of the Local Government Act 2000 (strategies for promoting well-being).").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 80: Page 10, line 5, leave out ("education").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 not moved.]

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 83:

Page 10, line 26, at end insert—

1. ("(d) "local authority" means a local authority as defined in section 1(a) of the Local Government Act 2000 and the Greater London Authority;
2. (e) a local authority is a relevant authority if any of its area falls within the area of the local council concerned.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

11.15 p.m.

Clause 25 [Directions]:

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 84 to 86:

Page 11, line 5, at end insert ("; and the directions may include any provisions described in subsections (2) to (2B).

Page 11, line 6, leave out ("include") and insert ("contain").

Page 11 line 10, at end insert— ("(2A) Subsection (2B) applies if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Council—

1. (a) has failed to discharge a duty imposed by or under any Act, or
2. (b) has acted or is proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of a power conferred or the performance of a duty imposed by or under any Act.

(2B) In such a case directions may contain such provision as the Secretary of State thinks fit as to the exercise of the Council's powers and performance of its duties. (2C) Directions may contain provision described in subsection (2B) despite any enactment making the exercise of a power or performance of a duty contingent on the Council's opinion.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 87:

Page 11, line 12, at end insert (", or (b) the reorganisation of education for persons from the age of 16 to 19, where such education is currently the responsibility of the education authority").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we return to Clause 25, which I know has been amended by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. But, unfortunately, it has not been amended in quite the way I expected. I am concerned about the conditions that the Secretary of State can impose on local councils. I believe that the Secretary of State should not have the right to direct that local authorities should close sixth forms.

The Minister said that the clause could be made clearer. One of those unclear provisions related to some of the conditions that could be placed on a local council and the subjective nature of some of the judgments that would form the foundational basis for any directions made by a Secretary of State, or any conditions laid on a council. I regard that as a serious concern. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, we discussed an identical amendment moved by the noble Baroness in Committee. I told noble Lords then that Clause 25 secures the Secretary of State's powers to direct the LSC, as a last resort, where the proper use of large amounts of public funds is in question. I also made it clear that there is nothing novel in such a provision. I also explained that a clear precedent lay in the current direction-making powers of the Secretary of State and the National Assembly in respect of the FEFCs, under Section 56 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.

The noble Baroness has suggested that the Secretary of State would issue directions as a matter of course and that the council would be unreasonably constrained by them and have to make its routine planning in line with them. That is really not the case. However, as a last resort, it is essential that the Secretary of State should be able to intervene to direct the council. As the noble Baroness said, we have already debated government amendments that clarify that the Secretary of State would issue directions if he was satisfied that the council was in breach of any duty under this or any other Act, or had acted, or proposed to act, unreasonably.

The noble Baroness said that she is particularly concerned to prevent the Secretary of State issuing directions on how the LSC should exercise its functions in respect of any reorganisation of LEA 16 to 19 provision. In this connection, perhaps I should remind noble Lords that the LSC has three main functions in this area: first, it will be participating as a voting member on school organisation committees; secondly, it will be making proposals, where agreed with the governing body and the LEA, for the incorporation of LEA 16 to 19 institutions; and, thirdly, it will be making proposals for the closure of 16 to 19 LEA provision, which Ofsted has found to be inadequate in two consecutive reports. If, for example, the Secretary of State believed on receipt of a complaint from a parent or teacher that the council had acted unreasonably in respect of any of those functions, the government amendments to this clause ensure that he could intervene. However, the amendment of the noble Baroness would prevent him doing so.

On the previous occasion, the noble Baroness implied that, without her amendment, the Secretary of State would be able to direct the council to take action that would eclipse the responsibilities of LEAs for the 16 to 19 provision that they maintain. I cannot set out more clearly than I have just done the very limited functions that the LSC will have in respect of such provision. In Committee, we debated the way in which even these limited functions come with safeguards. I do not know how to set out more explicitly that the Secretary of State would direct the council in relation to these limited functions only if he believed that the council was acting unreasonably.

When we last debated this issue, the noble Baroness was also puzzled about how this clause protected public funds when directions may not concern the provision of financial resources in respect of activities carried on by a particular person or persons. I believe that there may be some confusion here. The Secretary of State may certainly give general directions about the use of public funds: and the LSC has powers of its own to ensure that public funds are used properly by individual institutions and providers. We have already debated some aspects of these in relation to Clause 6. The chief executive of the LSC will, of course, have his own personal responsibilities as the accounting officer.

However, we think that it would be entirely inappropriate for the Secretary of State to be able to tell the LSC how much money should go to a particular provider. That must be a matter for the judgment of the LSC, because it is the LSC that has the duty to make provision. If the Secretary of State could direct the LSC that such and such a college or school should have such and such an amount of money, he would immediately be open to accusations of favouritism and even of political interference. It is quite right that we should separate this out.

Much the same arrangements apply to further and higher education at present and we think that it is a sensible arrangement. But if there were serious and justified concerns about financial mismanagement which warranted the intervention of the Secretary of State, this would be possible under Section 57 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.

I hope that I have now made clear the distinction here. There is a difference between the decision-making required to make funding allocations to individual providers and the action that is required if those funds are considered to be at risk. In these circumstances, and in the light of the explanations that I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am becoming almost cynical as we progress through the Bill. It seems that the department works extremely hard to counter any reasonable idea of bringing some clarification and refinement to the Bill. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 [Committees]:

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 88: Leave out Clause 26.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have stated my feelings clearly concerning the proliferation of committees and the most unbelievable bureaucracy that the Bill incurs. I do not think that I have come across a Bill that has set up such a bureaucratic superstructure. Clause 26 refers to the power to set up committees.

The most sensible way for the national council to go about its work would be from time to time to commission specific work to be done, for example reviews, surveys or in-depth thinking about a particular aspect of delivering services to young people and adults below and above the age of 19. It is depressing to see provision for more standing committees. The Bill contains the power to establish a standing committee and also the power to set up any other committees. The provision appears to be open-ended. There is little information on that in the financial memorandum.

These committees could last for all time. They are proper standing committees. We all know that once a standing committee is set up it will spawn work and certainly a secretariat. It will certainly require support, equipment and accommodation. Endless other people will attend the proceedings as observers. I do not believe that that is the most effective way to look for innovative ideas to develop and provide services for young people and adults. I have a total aversion to setting up standing committees in the way that is proposed and also to the open-ended commitment for the council to set up any number of committees as it wishes.

There is no reference anywhere in the Bill to a requirement to have regard to the cost of setting up such committees; to the life of such committees; to the number of such committees; or to the number of people who serve on such committees. The Secretary of State has yet another finger in a pie approving the appointments to the committees, the chairmen of the committees and the conditions under which they work. This is another example of the heavy-handed, top down approach with, as I say, yet more bureaucracy. I do not believe that this will genuinely further the needs of young people or of adult learners. I beg to move.

Lord Bach

My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Baroness can get so upset about this part of the Bill so late at night. We had a full discussion at Committee stage about the setting up of these two committees, a young persons' learning committee and an adult learning committee. Her amendments would, of course, also prevent the LSC from setting up any further committees.

The young persons' committee and the adult committee are necessary to advise the council on how to attain the national learning targets for young people and adults. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that she was very worried about the costs that will be associated with these committees. I can reassure her that members of the committees will not be paid a salary; they will receive only allowances of the kind which are necessary to cover their general expenses—for example, to cover the costs of travel and subsistence. We think that that is only reasonable. It is surely right that, where committee members—who will be experts in their field—give up significant amounts of time for the benefit of the public, they are not left out of pocket. If this were not the case, I think it might be unnecessarily difficult for the council to obtain the services of people of the highest calibre, which it surely deserves. The nature, extent and eligibility of committee members for allowances will be under the control of the Secretary of State, not the LSC. He is accountable to Parliament for all his expenditure.

The amendments would also prevent the LSC from establishing any other committees to advise it on its functions. Given the range and depth of the LSC's responsibilities, we do not think that that is wise. It would seriously impair the decision-making of the LSC and put at risk both its obligations to learners and to the best use of public funds. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that she was very concerned that the committees of the LSC could create further committees of their own volition. I am happy to reassure her that that is not the case. Schedule 3 makes clear that the creation of any committees is a matter for the council.

I regret that the noble Baroness and I will disagree so far as concerns these committees. In the light of the explanation I have given her, I hope she will withdraw her amendments.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, it is obviously because of the lateness of the hour that the noble Lord has misunderstood so much of what I have said. I said that it is the council that will have the power to set up endless committees. There is no limit on the number of committees it can set up and there is no limit on its budget for setting them up. It simply has the power to set up other committees as it sees fit.

Neither my amendments nor the way I spoke to them would inhibit work from being done. My suggestion was that the council should commission specific work. It should determine what it wants to look into, what aspects of policy it wants to develop and what innovations should be considered. If specific work was commissioned, once it had been done the people carrying it out could be stood down and that would be the end of the matter. That would be a much better way. Volunteers could still be engaged to do that work and he paid on the basis suggested by the noble Lord for paying members of the standing committees. If I thought that the noble Lord would even partly accommodate my putting forward an amendment along those lines, I would do so in order to make it absolutely clear that I am not leaving a vacuum so far as concerns Schedule 3 and Clause 26.

It is all very well for the Minister to say that the members of the standing committees will be paid only out-of-pocket allowances for travelling, food and subsistence—of course that will be the case. But they will he serviced by a fully-paid secretariat and supported by fully-paid scribes, who will have to print agendas, liaise with other bodies and communicate on their behalf. There will be a good number of fully paid people. We shall stand back and watch with interest as they appear.

We shall be interested to know where they will come from. At the risk of some irritation to the Government, I return constantly to the matter of the £19 billion. During the course of the Bill we have heard much about money that will be taken from the so-called £19 billion over three years. If an issue concerning education needs funding, there is no other source that it can come from. We heard earlier about the new £40 a week for educational maintenance allowances; again, that is making inroads into the £19 billion. Every time that happens, more money is held back from core funding for our schools. It is no surprise that schools are wondering where the £19 billion is going.

I was deeply disappointed with the answer that I received, but it was no more than I expected. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3 [Committees (England)]:

[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]

11.30 p.m.

Clause 30 [The Council]:

Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 90: Page 12, line 19, leave out ("not less than 10 and not more than 12") and insert ("up to 6").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships considered two of these amendments, Amendments Nos. 91 and 92, at a late hour on the second day in Committee. They did not find favour with the Government, although there are clearly strong arguments for making the membership of the council for education and training for Wales (CETW) commensurate in size, not only with the LSC, its English equivalent, but also with the 47 English regional councils. That is the aim of those two amendments. Amendment No. 90 is new, and specifies a maximum number of members—at 16, equal to the maximum of the English councils.

The case for parity between national councils in England and Wales is very strong. The duties and responsibilities of both national councils are much the same and so are the diverse interests for which they will have to cater: sixth-formers, further education students, their teachers and lecturers, local education authorities and colleges, training providers and employers, actual and potential, in the public and private sectors. Additionally, there is a string of bodies, from the Welsh Development Agency to the TUC, which will have an input.

I do not expect all those bodies to be directly or indirectly represented but their educational achievement and skill needs and those of the public and private sector concerns with which they are involved must be fully understood, appreciated and taken into account. Why it should be thought that Wales can make do with a smaller council than England in these circumstances frankly defies my understanding.

In Committee, the Minister referred to the geographical disparity between England and Wales, but at the same time she wisely acknowledged the diversity of interests within Wales. They will rightly expect their needs, which reflect those of one of the poorest regional economies in the United Kingdom, to be attended to. I must remind the House that a substantial part of Wales, the Valleys and the western parts, now meet the criteria for Objective 1 status, which means in brief that their GDP is below 75 per cent of the European average.

There is an enormous amount of work to be done in the education and training field in Wales if our economy is to thrive and our young people are to stay put rather than leave for greener pastures. "Depopulation" is a very ugly word in Wales, and we do not want to see a repetition of it.

There are other peculiarities in the Welsh scene that justify parity of membership between the two national councils. Let me preface my summary of them by saying that I do not argue for parity for its own sake; that is, just because England has a council of 12 to 16, Wales must have the same as a matter of right or pride. If the Welsh council could perform its tasks with fewer, I should be more than content. But I do not believe that it can, and there's the rub. Here we are, writing the minimum and maximum numbers into the Bill until such time as there is another Bill on these matters, which may be some years hence.

The great underlying difference between England and Wales so far as the Bill is concerned is that provision for business and employer interests has been made for England but not in Wales. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that the chairman of the LSC will have business experience and it is intended that about 40 per cent of the membership will be similarly qualified. We know that some of the functions of the training and enterprise councils in England are to be transferred to the Small Business Unit. That is a reasonably promising scenario. I regret to say that the Welsh scene is not so promising and that there is grave danger that our young people will suffer in consequence.

At worst, the charge in Wales is that the Assembly is unfriendly towards business. Whether that is true or false, the Assembly would be wise to counter it, as one Member of the administration, Mr Tom Middlehurst, has already done. But more than words will be needed to establish beyond doubt that the council will not have a built-in public sector institutional bias which may cause it to fail to meet employers' needs for skills. The CBI put the position as follows: The new system will succeed or fail to the extent that it involves and meets the needs of employers. Employers depend on a skilled workforce to survive and prosper—they are the ultimate customers of the system. They are important partners as well—in making apprenticeship and trainee places available, in providing labour market information to help individuals choose the best education and training for their employability and in developing young people's employability through education business links. Employers are the primary source of training investment. All this does not only apply to England—it also applies to Wales. The current proposals in Wales do not encourage employers to become involved. They could lead to an ineffective supplier-led system which fails to promote economic growth and employment". That is a very serious piece of criticism which must be heeded.

Employers must be present within the council itself to ensure that there are policies in place to meet their requirements. The problem of regaining their good will is compounded by the fact that no firm decision has yet been taken about the future location of the various roles of the soon-to-be-abolished TECs. That issue is now to be considered at a leisurely pace by the Assembly's Economic Development Committee.

I do not attempt to put into the Bill the 40 per cent business membership requirement for which the CBI has pressed. That proposal was rejected outright by a vote in the Assembly and I have no wish to defy that decision. However, I have a great deal of sympathy with the proposal, as I suspect do the Government because they have given assurances on that score as far as concerns England.

During proceedings in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who is now in his place, took the line that we should leave all these matters to the Assembly. We have no option but to do so. However, in this piece of primary legislation we can ensure that the Assembly is not so constricted and that it has scope with regard to the membership of the council. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 90 which would allow up to 16 members, as in the case of the English council. Incidentally, I have scoured the proceedings of the Assembly and of the Post-16 Education, Schools and Early Learning Committee and can find no substantial discussion of the size of council required to enable it adequately to perform its functions.

There are two other distinctive aspects of the Welsh scene that I mention briefly. First, the Welsh council will continue to have oversight of the higher education sector. That is totally different from the position in England. I entirely approve of that decision, not least because I had a hand in joining the funding of further and higher education in Wales eight years ago. But it means that the council will have control of a very large sum of money which is estimated by Professor Kevin Morgan to be about 10 per cent of the entire budget of the Assembly, and bigger than that of any other quango in Wales.

Secondly, it is laid down in the Bill that if the Assembly decides that there should be subsidiary regional councils or committees—the possibility is that there will be four—their chairmen will automatically be members of the main council. That will reduce the remaining membership to between six and eight. Such numbers will be totally inadequate and will result in an oligarchic set-up which will please no one. I beg to move.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale)

My Lords, I should inform the House that if Amendment No. 90 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 91 or 92.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, for approaching me some days ago to discuss his proposed amendments. It has given me the opportunity to consider the very persuasive case he has advanced and to consult my colleagues in the Welsh Assembly.

Having considered the matter in depth, I do not consider that the right approach is simply to compare ourselves with the English regional councils. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has not suggested that we should, but there is always a danger of saying, "If England has something, Wales has to have the same". It is not a representative body in the sense that people will be specifically mandated to speak for particular points of view. We need to strike a balance between the public sector and the institutional bodies, and the business sector. Although the CBI in Wales is pressing for that 40 per cent proportion of the council, that is not a proper approach. A balance is required.

At the back of my mind is the argument that was always put against devolution in Wales: that we were simply creating jobs for the boys. So a balance has to be struck between the number of new positions created and the effectiveness of the organisation. I do not dissent from the government view that a council of 10 to 12 members will be effective and will not seem to the people of Wales merely to be creating new quango places.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for discussing the matter with me. However, I regret that on this occasion I cannot support the amendment.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, I am particularly pleased that at 18 minutes before midnight I am still able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on his birthday. I feared that it was not going to be possible to do so.

We have already debated Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 in Committee and while I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, considers that membership of between 10 and 12 is too small to reflect the diversity of bodies with a close interest in post-16 education and training, we cannot agree with his assessment. We have considered the issue and are convinced that this number will be sufficient for the Assembly to ensure that all the key stakeholders in Wales are represented, in particular within the framework identified by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Although the legislative powers of the Assembly relate only to secondary legislation, we must acknowledge that the devolution settlement puts the Assembly in a far better position than we at Westminster in assessing how many members will be needed to ensure that the education and training needs of the people of Wales are met.

The amendment would bring the number of council members in Wales in line with the number in England. But in Wales, the council's budget for post-16 learning, including school sixth form funding, will be in the region of £400 million—compared with the learning and skills council budget of some £6 billion in England. The post-16 population in England is around 40 million, more than 16 times that in Wales. The CETW will be responsible for a fraction of the number of providers compared with the LSC. Given these facts, it is eminently sensible that the LSC should have more members than the CETW, just as the existing FEFC for England has more members than its counterpart in Wales. With regard to the point made about the new council and higher education, the HEFCW will remain the same.

Although the local LSCs in England would vary considerably in terms of the population covered, they, like their parent body, will also have a membership of between 12 and 16. But comparing local and national arrangements in England with those in Wales is inappropriate. In Wales there will be voluntary local partnerships of providers and others who will work together to help the CETW—as remitted by the National Assembly—to plan the delivery of high quality provision. The size of these community consortia will vary from locality to locality and it is possible that some may exceed 16 members in certain areas of Wales. Given the entirely different roles planned for the CETW and these local partnerships, the membership of the community consortia has no bearing on what is appropriate for the National Council for Wales.

In Committee in this House, and again tonight, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, expressed concern that if the four regional committees of the CETW are established, each chairman will be a member of the national council, limiting to between six and eight the number of remaining places on the board to represent the full range of interests. This simply will not be the case. The National Assembly will appoint members of the council with relevant expertise and experience from the wide range of interests associated with post-16 education and training. From that membership, should the CETW decide to establish regional committees, the new council will appoint four of its members to take on the additional role of chairing its regional committees.

The noble Lord's alternative amendment, No. 90, would remove the requirement for a minimum number of members and bring the maximum number in line with that for the LSC in England. It is essential that the minimum number of members is specified to ensure that the Welsh council will be of a sufficient size to ensure that it has the breadth and depth of knowledge and expertise required to fulfil its functions. However, for reasons that I have explained, we have concluded that a maximum membership of 12 will be sufficient.

At this stage, it is not for me to comment on remarks made about the proceedings followed by the Assembly in consideration of these matters. With regard to the point raised about TECs, the position is complex. Therefore, the Assembly will give careful consideration. I hope that I have addressed all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and that in the light of my reply he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

11.45 p.m.

Lord Roberts of Conwy

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for tackling head on the points I made. Of course I accept the differences in size of population between England and Wales. However, the functions, duties and responsibilities of the national councils are much the same. It is my contention that the Welsh council must be of a size similar to the English national council.

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the role of the regional committee chairmen, if they are established. I understand that they will be drawn from membership of the main council. They will have a difficult task playing both roles and we shall have to see how they are able to carry that out.

My own view is that the smaller Welsh council has a very difficult, if not impossible, task. When Dr Johnson was composing his dictionary, it was pointed out that 13 Frenchmen were composing an encyclopaedia. Dr Johnson turned upon his informant and said, "It only goes to prove that one Englishman is worth 13 Frenchmen". I do not believe that in Wales we have ever claimed that 12 Welshmen are worth 16 Englishmen—certainly not on the rugby field, according to the latest match result. However, I reiterate that the council will have a very difficult task.

Although it is not yet the delightful hour when the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, celebrates his birthday, I shall wish him a very happy birthday in advance and withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 not moved.]

Clause 31 [Education and training for persons aged 16 to 19]:

[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]

Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 94:

Page 13, line 6, at end insert— ("(bb) take account of the education and training required in different sectors of employment for employees and potential employees;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]

Clause 32 [Education and training for persons over 19]:

Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 96:

Page 13, line 35, at end insert— ("(bb) take account of the education and training required in different sectors of employment for employees and potential employees;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 97 and 98 not moved.]

Clause 41 [Persons with learning difficulties]:

Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 99: Page 17, line 13, leave out ("and 32") and insert (",32 and 34(1)(g)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 42 [Disabled persons]:

Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 100: Leave out Clause 42 and insert the following new clause—

EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY

(" .—(1) In exercising its functions the Council must have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity—

1. (a) between persons of different racial groups,
2. (b) between men and women, and
3. (c) between persons who are disabled and persons who are no.

(2) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year of the Council it must publish a report containing—

1. (a) a statement of the arrangements made under subsection (1) and having effect in the year;
2. (b) an assessment of how effective the arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity.

(3) The report must also contain a statement of the arrangements which the Council has made, or proposes to make, under subsection (1) in respect of the financial year immediately following that referred to in subsection (2).

(4) The Council must send a copy of the report to the National Assembly.

(5) "Racial group" has the same meaning as in the Race Relations Act 1976.

(6) Disabled persons are persons who are disabled for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 101, as an amendment to Amendment No. 100, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 100 agreed to.

Clause 45 [Directions]:

Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 102 to 104:

Page 18, line 31, at end insert ("; and the directions may include any provisions described in subsections (2) to (2B)").

Page 18, line 32, leave out ("include") and insert ("contain").

Page 18, line 36, at end insert— ("(2A) Subsection (2B) applies if the National Assembly is satisfied that the Council—

1. (a) has failed to discharge a duty imposed by or under any Act, or
2. (b) has acted or is proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of a power conferred or the performance of a duty imposed by or under any Act.

(2B) In such a case directions may contain such provision as the National Assembly thinks fit as to the exercise of the Council's powers and performance of its duties. (2C) Directions may contain provision described in subsection (2B) despite any enactment making the exercise of a power or performance of a duty contingent on the Council's opinion.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 5 [Committees (Wales)]:

Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 105: Page 64, line 35, leave out ("may") and insert ("must").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I said earlier, in the business world in Wales there is growing concern about the absence of commitment, in this case to regional committees. That is highlighted by the option given to the council as to whether or not to establish such committees.

During the Committee stage of this Bill, I quoted the CBI brief at col. 902 of the Official Report for 10th February. Those words still stand and I shall not repeat them. Naturally, as I do, the CBI contrasts the provisions made for Wales with those made for England, and the contrast is glaring. The English structure of a national council with local councils allied to it is clear, firm and businesslike. Only today we have heard about the important role that local councils are to play in England in relation to new Clause 14. There is a similar new clause for Wales— Clause 100—which relates to equality of opportunity. However, there are no executive councils to carry that out at local level.

Therefore, as I said, the Welsh structure, by contrast, is, frankly, wishy-washy and indecisive. There is a looseness about it which reeks of a laxity of thought and the fear is that that will persist and permeate the implementation of the Bill and its operation on the ground. That would be disastrous, but such a disaster is now staring us in the face unless the Government make the change which we propose.

Of course, the Government's view is that they should not tell the Assembly what to do. But they have not been averse to doing so in the Local Government Bill, which received its Third Reading in your Lordships' House at the end of last week. The word "must" is used there in relation to the assembly. In Clause 45, it states that the Assembly "must" provide a model code of conduct for councillors. So the Government should have no qualms about using that word again as proposed in my amendment.

The position with regard to regional committees is made more ambiguous by the fact that it is believed to be the intention of the assembly to establish such committees. Indeed, in our Committee, the Minister said that, the National Assembly recognises the key input of the business sector and has pledged that each regional committee will have a chairman with a solid business background".—[Official Report, 10/2/2000; col. 905.] in view of what she has just said, that means that there should be at least four members of the council with a solid business background.

But it will not be easy to find such people of real worth when business people realise that the regional committees in Wales are to be purely advisory and different from the local councils in England, which will have executive powers. But of course that is a separate issue.

The point I wish to make now, even at this late hour, is that there is a body of opinion in the Assembly, not necessarily of my party-political persuasion, which realises the need for regional committees. But there is a lack of wholehearted commitment to them. I believe that the Government would be wise to give the necessary leadership in this Bill and resolve in advance the difficulties which will otherwise arise.

Among the novel ideas developed in Wales as a result of extensive consultation and deliberations by the Assembly's post-16 education committee is that there should be what are called community consortia for education and training. I understand that there will be about 15 of them. They are the subject of my second amendment, Amendment No. 106.

The Minister described them with admirable clarity at 12.30 in the morning. She said: However, local consortia will not be part of CETW. They will be voluntary partnerships of education and training providers, employers and others which will help plan the delivery of post-16 learning in their areas. The distinct components of the consortia will have equal status and will be funded directly by CETW".

She went on to say: The CETW will be tasked by the National Assembly with deciding the actual size, boundaries and composition of community consortia, but it is the National Assembly's intention that no single interest will dominate. Community consortia partners, including employers and voluntary sector representatives, will together plan the provision for their local areas".—[Official Report, 10/2/2000; col. 907.] I can ad` to the Minister's statement that the concept has been endorsed by the post-16 committee of the assembly and the relevant Assembly Secretary has been asked to produce a framework for the establishment of the consortia.

But it will astonish your Lordships, as it astonished me, that those community consortia, which are clearly to be an important feature of education and training in Wales are nowhere mentioned in this Bill. They are to be non-statutory but in receipt of public funds and therefore, I presume, accountable for their spending. They will not be an arm or section, but the council will set them up and decide their scope and composition and they, in turn, will plan provision for their area. But they do not seem to deserve a mention in the Bill. I have sought to remedy the situation by simply including them among the committees that the council may establish so that they may have some status, however casual, and recognition of their existence, if not of their potentially important role. But it is not to be unless the Government reject the advice to resist the amendment.

I must say that the consortia are not alone in being left out of the Bill. The task force, to quote the Minister, will advise on the practical measures which can be taken to ease skills shortages, to improve the extent and quality of learning in the workplace and to ensure that providers of education and training are responsive to the skills needs of employers and individuals".—[Official Report, 10/2/2000; cols. 907–8] That, to my mind, is a major remit. The body which has it should have its place in the Bill. But your Lordships will no doubt be told that the task force will work for the council and whatever needs to be done will be done by the council, which is the fons et origo of all executive power under the Assembly. But I wonder what will happen if the task force fails in the proper execution of its remit. It is non-statutory and there is no remedy against it. That is part of the worrying dissemination of ministerial power to arbitrarily appointed people which, I fear, is rampant in the Government and will result in serious embarrassment sooner or later.

I am sorry to say that the picture of the future governance of education and training in Wales, which is emerging from our discussion on the Bill, is far from clear. The one thing that is clear to me is that there is a great deal of confusion and muddle. There is to be a strongly centralist council which may, or may not, but probably will establish regional committees with no real powers, which are advisory only, and voluntary, non-statutory, community consortia with an important planning and delivery role and a national advisory task force jogging the pantomime horse along. I have the gravest doubts as to whether it will work. I beg to move.

Midnight

Lord Thomas of Gresford

My Lords, I cannot imagine a more genial way of spending the vanishing moments of my birthday than discussing the Learning and Skills Bill in your Lordships' House with particular reference to Wales. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, for their good wishes. I wondered whether I might turn into a pumpkin as the notes of Big Ben struck.

Here again, I have had the opportunity of consulting with my colleagues. As I have said before—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred to my remarks—we on these Benches are anxious that the National Assembly for Wales should retain maximum flexibility. Indeed, it was noticeable that, when the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, moved an amendment not so long ago to omit the whole of Schedule 3, she called for that very flexibility in her argument. When one considers Schedule 3, the first thing which strikes me is that the word "must" appears in paragraph 1(1)(a). The council in England, must establish a young people's learning committee and an adult learning committee". That may be good enough for England, but the National Assembly for Wales requires the maximum amount of flexibility in order to determine what is best for Wales, having regard to the needs of Wales as the National Assembly sees it.

We recognise the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, but it is on principle that we oppose the amendment. As for the further amendment, which refers to community consortia, we are glad that that is a matter which the National Assembly has in mind. Clearly, community consortia will provide useful functions in post-16 education in Wales. We look forward to their being established. But we see no need for them to be marked out in the Bill itself.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

My Lords, it was for us, too, a pleasure to share the closing moments of the noble Lord's birthday. He says that he could not think of a better way to spend it. Had it been a year later, I am quite sure I would have given way to my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who instead of singing some Gilbert and Sullivan could have sung a Beatles' song in celebration!

The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, tabled these amendments in Committee. As then, I urge him to withdraw them. As both the noble lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and I made clear at that time, and as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, made clear tonight, the provisions in the Bill reflect the will of the National Assembly which derives from thorough and careful consideration in Wales of the arrangements for the CETW's committees.

The preference of the National Assembly is for the CETW to have a permissive power giving it the maximum flexibility to determine its own organisational structures to suit the particular circumstances in Wales. The Assembly has, however, made plain its expectation that the new council will indeed establish regional committees. The Bill reflects the Assembly's wish to work co-operatively with the CETW in the interests of the people of, and local circumstances in, Wales rather than by imposing inflexible structures on it. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, to recognise the Assembly's wish and to withdraw his amendment.

I think that the noble Lord may have misheard me on the question of appointment by the Assembly of members of the council to chair bodies. The National Assembly will appoint members of the council with relevant expertise and experience from the wide range of interests associated with post-16 education and training.

Amendment No. 106 was also discussed in Committee and I have little to add to what I said at that time. The underlying principle of the community consortia, as endorsed by the National Assembly in its plenary debate of 1st February this year, is that they should be voluntary partnerships of existing education and training providers, rather than arbitrarily enforced alliances whose functions are specified and members appointed by the council. It would be wholly inappropriate to bring community consortia within the scope of the CETW's powers in that way. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, to withdraw his amendment.

The noble Lord also raised the issue of the task force. I can assure him that the aim is for it to work in partnership across all sectors. Therefore, particularly in Wales, it cannot possibly fail.

Lord Roberts of Conwy

My Lords, I am delighted to hear of the Minister's confidence in what is proposed for Wales. I am sorry to say that I do not share it. I regard this as a somewhat messy Bill as far as concerns Wales. It does not reflect in its detail what will happen and how education and training will be provided.

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining how the regional committee chairmen are to be appointed. I am now clear in my understanding of that position. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that flexibility is one thing; loose thinking, as he knows only too well, is quite another. As I have said, this measure reeks to me of indecision. I am very fearful as to how this will operate in practice. Nevertheless, I have had my say on these amendments and at this hour I am happy to withdraw them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]

Lord Bach

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at ten minutes after midnight.