Further Education and Training Bill [HL]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8B, 8C, 8D, 8E, 8F and 8G in lieu of Commons Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 to which this House has disagreed. The House last considered the Bill on 25 July. By a very narrow margin, the House disagreed with the provision on intervention in unsatisfactory further education institutions that had been agreed in another place. The other place has considered our disagreement and the amendments which are before us today include significant new provisions. I believe that we have now got the right clauses for this part of the Bill. Before I come on to the detail of what is now proposed, I thank those on the Benches opposite, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, for their help and advice as we considered the outcome of your Lordships' objections on 25 July and, more generally, throughout the passage of the Bill. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Dearing and Lord Sutherland, and others on the Cross Benches as well as noble Lords on the Government Benches and others who have worked very hard on various aspects of the Bill. Their help to get the right provisions and detailed wording into the Bill itself, and in documents setting out supporting arrangements, has been invaluable. At each stage in which colleagues on this side of the House and on other benches have been involved, they have identified matters which needed to be investigated and resolved. They have made constructive suggestions for improvement, which would leave them and the further education system more confident about the new arrangements. It is my belief that every one of those issues has now been addressed or, at the very least, that sensible and workable compromises have been achieved as a result of the process that I have described. We have a Bill that meets the aspirations to carry further education forward, to enable it more fully to fulfil the roles demanded of it in a modern society. The amendments that are now being proposed make provision for the Learning and Skills Council in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales to intervene in unsatisfactory further education provision. I do not think any of us in the House has a quarrel with the principle that there should be such intervention. The issue is ensuring that the system is operated properly and that those who make the interventions are fully accountable. On 25 July, your Lordships expressed particular concern about the arrangements for England. Let me set out what those arrangements would be. The Learning and Skills Council would, in addition to the powers of intervention it currently has, be able to exercise, with modifications, powers that currently reside with the Secretary of State. The LSC would not have any powers to intervene in ways that the Secretary of State cannot currently do. The LSC would be required by the Bill to prepare a statement of how it proposed to use its statutory intervention powers. An illustrative draft of what this statement might contain has been made available to the House. On 25 July I set out details of specific triggers for intervention that will be included in a later consultative draft. I also described to the House how consultation on that draft will be conducted, including specific bodies to be consulted. The Bill also requires the LSC to consider representations on its draft statement. It must submit the statement to the Secretary of State who will, if he approves it, lay a copy before each House of Parliament. The LSC must publish the statement that has been approved by the Secretary of State and act in accordance with the most recently published statement. There is provision in the Bill for similar arrangements in relation to a statement by Welsh Ministers. Following consultation on the draft statement, the Welsh Ministers are required to lay it before the National Assembly for Wales. They must publish the statement and act in accordance with it. It will be clear how the powers will be operated. The statement by the LSC or by Welsh Ministers will set out arrangements for notifying a governing body about issues of concern and, if it becomes appropriate, the possibility of intervention. The amendments before us today also include a significant extra provision, which is that the Secretary of State must be notified beforehand by the LSC of any intended statutory intervention. Specifically, the LSC would be required, before it exercised any of the statutory intervention powers, to give the Secretary of a State a notice setting out the grounds for intervention and the reasons that the LSC considered that they applied, what the LSC proposed to do and the reasons why it proposed to do those particular things. In another place, the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education has clarified that on receipt of such a notice, the Secretary of State would be able to take action if he considered that what the LSC was proposing to do was inappropriate. He could use his powers under either proposed Section 56C of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992; or, where he was satisfied that the LSC was proposing to act or was acting unreasonably or had failed to discharge a statutory duty, his powers under Section 25 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. The Minister also gave two important commitments in the other place. On receipt of such a notice, the Secretary of State will write to local MPs to ensure that they are aware, on a personal basis, of the possibility of intervention. He also said that Ministers intend to use the Secretary of State’s power under Section 28(2) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 to direct the LSC to include in its published annual report a statement summarising how it has used its statutory intervention powers. In the debate in the other place, there was widespread support for the arrangements on intervention in unsatisfactory further education provision that Ministers are now proposing. John Hayes, the MP for South Holland and The Deepings said that, "““the amendments and the further written assurance of the Minister represent a significant change of direction ... my colleagues in this place welcome the amendments and the tone that the Minister has adopted in introducing them””.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/10/07; col. 515.]" Sarah Teather, for the Lib Dems, said that, "““we now have an amendment that is a considerable improvement ... we have moved a long way since the first draft of the provision, and that has met most of my concerns ... as the Minister has moved so far, I shall certainly not oppose it today””.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/10/07; col. 517.]" In the past couple of days, I have given careful consideration to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who queried the reference in proposed Section 56A(2)(a) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 to mismanagement of the institution’s affairs by the governing body. His point that it is not for the governing body to manage the day-to-day affairs of the institution is well taken. ““Mismanagement”” here is not about the college’s day-to-day activities, which are properly the responsibility of the principal in his or her role as chief executive. In the context of this clause, mismanagement relates to the conduct of the governing body in discharging its responsibilities as set out in the instrument and articles of government. The instrument and articles make it clear that the governing body has strategic responsibility for the college and the principal has responsibility for its day-to-day running. For example, the instrument and articles state that the governing body is responsible for approving the annual estimates of income and expenditure, while the principal is responsible for preparing the estimates for its consideration and approval. I assure the noble Lord and the House that nothing in this provision implies that Ministers are seeking to change the respective roles of the governing body and the principal as set out in the instrument and articles. Indeed, the provision in this part of the Bill mirrors existing provision in Section 57 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. I am grateful to the noble Lord, as I have been for his constructive and important interventions throughout the passage of this Bill, for raising that point and giving me the opportunity for clarifying it. I thank him. He has been assiduous in ensuring that the meanings of any particular provision are clear. We have benefited hugely from that. I hope on this occasion that noble Lords’ comments and suggestions for improvement have been reflected in what I have said to the House. The Government have made significant changes to the Bill in supporting arrangements and I am sure that other documents that are necessary as a backup, which will describe these matters further, will reflect the points I made today. I shall ensure that all such documents are deposited in the Library of the House. As a Government, we have reflected on these points and on the changes to the Bill—to the supporting arrangements, including those in relation to this provision. I hope that the House will agree that it now addresses the outstanding concerns expressed by noble Lords and that we have reached a point of agreement on the Bill. I hope that is reflected in what I have had to say and I can conclude only by once again thanking everyone who has made it possible to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on a Bill that will be of great value to further education in this country. I beg to move. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8B, 8C, 8D, 8E, 8F and 8G in lieu of Commons Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 to which this House has disagreed.—(Lord Triesman.)