---

Mr. Dickens : By apportionment.

Mr. Rogers : That may be so, but who decides? Ultimately, adult education is shuffled off the end.

People go into adult education for different reasons. While some take psychiatric courses or courses to repair certain objects, others undertake courses as a development programme, to attain a certificate or even as access to further education. We need adult education and I plead with the Minister to look carefully at the new clause and accept it as it stands, perhaps amending it in the future if he wishes to do so.

I understand why the Minister is against the suggestion that local authorities should run adult education. It is simply because the Government distrust all local government whether Tory or Labour. For some peculiar reason, the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), did not like local government and it has been bashed for the past 10 years. It is about time the Government stopped bashing local government and Ministers were mature enough to get rid of their hang-up about local government.

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : I am grateful, as we should always be, to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) because he often tables amendments that enable us to express long-standing questions and grievances about the Bill that have not otherwise been identified. His ability to identify those issues is an example to us all.

I hope that something good will come out of the Bill. The Minister must be well aware that in many community colleges throughout the country people are concerned, alarmed and distressed about what they think is happening. Although I have sent him only a few examples, he will also be well aware that many people who attend community colleges where leisure, recreational and education classes are provided together have been given to understand that, once the Bill becomes law, leisure and recreational classes will be closed down and fees for all classes will increase.

I received four letters this morning from people who attend the dressmaking class at Ambleside Drive college asking me to get an assurance from the Minister that those classes will not close down because of his horrible Bill. Those complaints are not from people who go around with sledgehammers and throw bottles and bombs ; they are from those who are among the huge number of people who very much enjoy the activities that community colleges

---

Column 251

offer. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton to get across some facts clearly.

I have sent all my constituents a splendid letter, as the Minister says, saying that no money will be cut, no class will be required to close and no fees will need to go up. Although I am constantly sending such letters, people unfortunately have the impression that that what I have just said is not the case. The college staff are acutely worried about what is happening, with the result that posters are being put on the walls urging people to stop the Tory plot to close down the dressmaking classes at Ampleside Drive college. We know that the colleges are terribly popular. The attendance rate at Ampleside Drive college shows that it is undoubtedly a big success. We must try to find out what the Bill provides for and what the amendment provides for. I hope that the Minister will explain what good comes from the Bill.

Does the Minister accept that there are some dangers posed to community colleges? We all know that, although county councils are wonderful organisations, when there is a change of Government policy, those councils- -whether Conservative, Labour or Liberal

Democrat--sometimes do nasty things and blame them on the Government. That could happen in this instance. Some county councils might decide to close down classes such as the dressmaking class at Ampleside Drive college and let the Government carry the blame.

Some colleges provide education, recreational and leisure classes, with the entire college working extremely well and efficiently. If one section of the college is taken out--for example, the education part--and shoved somewhere else, there is a danger that the college will not be so economically sound. As a consequence, instead of three colleges in one town, there may be only two or two and a half, and instead of five colleges in a large town, their numbers might be reduced to three and a half. That prospect worries college staff. What can be done now? I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that, if the splendid Ampleside Drive college wants its education classes to continue, and wants to remain a leisure, recreational and educational college, it can seek to co-operate with the local further education college. It could ask the FE college to include it when the FE college makes its requests of the council. The FE college may say yes or no. In the short term it will probably say yes, as accommodation may not otherwise be available. Instead of education coming under the control of the college principal, there would be a system of subcontracting. Instead of the college superior, principal or director being in charge of everything, he would be in charge of leisure and recreation, while the control and administration of education would come under the remit of one of the clever people in charge of the FE college. I think that the Minister would accept that that would create problems, tensions, distress and alarm among college staff.

Does the Minister appreciate that, if the amendment were accepted, it would mean that education would be commissioned directly from the funding council? Instead of being a sort of odd job done under a subcontract, the

---

Column 252

college could go straight to the council to ask if it could run the education service. The college director would still be in charge of everything.

It will make a big difference to a college if there is uncertainty--as there undoubtedly will be--first, as to whether some of the work might be taken away and, secondly, as to whether the local authority might do nasty things because of the change. In addition, college staff would feel humiliated at the education section being placed under the control of someone else. On that basis, I think that the Minister will see why there has been so much concern, distress and alarm.

Will the Minister assure me that I can tell my splendid local college that it can still continue with the education classes if that is agreed with the council and the local FE college? Some of the staff have the impression that those classes will be whipped away. My understanding is that they will not be, but will continue.

Mr. Eggar : I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.

Sir Teddy Taylor : I promise my hon. Friend that I will sit down before 9.40 pm. I am sure that he will accept that, if there is to be change, it will cause upset, particularly among academic staff. I rarely praise Ministers--I like to attack them--but the Minister of State takes education seriously and is fair-minded. Does he accept that people in charge of colleges providing education, leisure and recreation may be humiliated when they suddenly find that the glowing part of their responsibilities suddenly come under the control of others? That will cause distress and allegations of unfairness, not to mention feelings of discontent. Outsiders who may be less highly regarded may take over control of important parts of these activities, and the luscious relationship based on direct funding from the funding council may come to an end. In those circumstances, will colleges be able to approach someone to have their problems discussed?

The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton represents an attempt to give the colleges some security in the knowledge that they are maintaining a high profile and a direct right to provide education. That is important for their status. By contrast, the new clause undermines the work of the council. If further education is provided by new local bodies, some of them sub-contracted, it will be undermined.

I ask Ministers to accept that there is a problem of education humiliation for some people, and to accept that there is a real problem. I see no reason why these colleges cannot carry on providing education. I hope that the Minister of State will show understanding of this real problem and will assure us that some of our worst fears are not well founded.

Mr. Andrew Smith : It is a measure of the importance that attaches to adult education and of the extent of dissatisfaction with the Government's proposals that we have heard so many speeches by Conservative Members this evening. As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has said, there is a real problem, and his colleagues underlined its extent and the need for a solution by means of the new clause.

It is to the credit of Conservative Members who support the new clause--it fits in well with our amendment No. 14--that they have listened to what is being said in

---

Column 253

their constituencies and have heard, like the rest of us, the representations from colleges and centres. Conservative Members have listened, while the Government resolutely refuse to listen. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Sir R. Maxwell-Hyslop) outlined a commendably strong case for the contribution of community colleges in the south-west. He pointed out that they offer evening use and the effective use of resources, and he mentioned the difficulties that they could be caused by the Bill.

These problems arise from the distinction or division that the Bill would entrench between schedule 2 and non-schedule 2 work. We had some exchanges in Committee over the Minister's attributing less priority to non-schedule 2 work. He said then :

"Schedule 2 encapsulates the course which the Government consider to be a matter of national economic and educational priority."--[ Official Report, Standing Committee F, 20 February 1992 ; c. 223.] That cannot but give the signal that courses not in schedule 2 are not matters of national economic and educational priority. 9.45 pm

The second great fear of all concerned with adult education concerns the adequacy of the funding that would be left through the local education authority route, given the confines imposed on local authorities by poll tax capping and Government cuts. The Minister has said that the Government are undertaking a survey, but when I asked him about this on 14 February, he gave me a reply which was not much of a valentine for those in adult education. Dealing with the report analysing the distribution of present local authority expenditure between schedule 2 and non-schedule 2 work, he said :

"The consultant's report is expected towards the end of this month and I will deposit a copy in the Library."--[ Official Report, 14 February 1992 ; Vol. 203, c. 646. ]

That report had not appeared by the end of February, and it has not been deposited in the Library. That shows contempt for the public, for adult education and for the House. Hon. Members are being invited to pronounce on an issue without having had the benefit of seeing the evidence that the Government rely upon for their case.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) spoke about the important contribution made by community colleges in rural areas. I emphasise that that contribution is also important in urban areas. The hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) spoke from his experience of community college provision in his constituency. I understand that the hon. Gentleman may have made his last contribution to our debates. We shall all miss the characteristic sincerity with which he spoke on behalf of his constituents. He underlined the damage that the Bill would cause in Leicestershire. It will be interesting to see how his hon. Friends who represent Leicestershire constituencies vote.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) made a powerful case for fairness of treatment between institutions which, under the terms of the Bill, will remain the responsibility of local education authorities and those which are incorporated. The new clause and the amendments are all about fairness. My hon. Friend spoke about the impossible difficulties that would be encountered through countywide services having to make bids via a further education college. He said that community education centres in Humberside

---

Column 254

would be at risk. They will also be at risk in Essex, Leicestershire, Cambridgeshire, Devon, and Surrey and all the other areas from which we have had so many representations.

Community colleges, adult colleges and community education services are being placed in an impossible position educationally, managerially and financially, because they will have to look to different sources of funding and will never know where they stand in relation to the planning of courses and the finance that is available for them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) was uncharacteristically soft-spoken and gentle in his demolition of the Government's case. My hon. Friend may be called in the Budget debate, but if his speech tonight turns out to be his last, we shall miss the force of his arguments, his personality and the brightness with which his political principles burn through all his comments.

The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) made a persuasive case on the vital contribution made by adult education as a bridge to widen educational opportunities. Many people on so-called non-vocational or leisure courses have an opportunity for the first time to develop self- confidence, and their involvement in a collegiate atmosphere leads them to further studies and qualifications. When people start such courses, it is impossible to predict whether they will proceed to qualifications. That is the fundamental flaw in the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made a powerful case for liberal non-vocational education which is provided in colleges all over the country. It is indefensible that that is totally overlooked in the Bill. The Government have not been interested in listening to what the public and those who are involved in adult education have been saying. From the publication of the White Papers last May to these guillotined proceedings, the Government have not paid attention to the hundreds of representations that they have received.

If the White Papers and the Bill have one achievement, it is that they have assembled a formidable coalition of opposition. It is not, as the Secretary of State suggested, a politically motivated coalition, but one that is concerned about education and its members range from women's institutes to the Association of County Councils and from some Conservative Members to the Workers Educational Association and the trade unions.

The Government have not listened to the concerns expressed by those bodies, any more than they have listened to the adult education colleges, the community education centres and the open college networks. Throughout our deliberations on the Bill, they have treated adult education and the 3.4 million people it serves as poor relations--as an afterthought. They have hacked the service about to fit their predetermined policy on further education colleges. Deaf to the chorus of protest, the Government have whipped and guillotined to ensure that their measure goes through unchanged, threatening the division and destruction of adult education should the Conservatives be returned to power. The Government have not listened, and the Government have not learned ; but the millions who care about adult education will know from the Government's shabby treatment of the service in the Bill that only Labour can be trusted to make a reality of educational opportunity for all our citizens.

---

Column 255

The Conservatives will learn the hard way. Adult education will prove to be one more reason why they will lose the election and we will win. I urge the House to support the new clause and the amendments.

Mr. Eggar : At least the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) had the decency to smile when he claimed that Labour would provide the solution for adult students. He knows the record of the last Labour Government. In real terms, funding for adult education centres fell by 12 per cent. over five years. Under the present Government, it has risen by no less than 31 per cent. in real terms ; moreover, there has been an increase of nearly 50 per cent. in the number of adults educated in further education colleges.

The Bill is concerned with finding ways in which to provide more students with a better quality of adult education. That is its whole objective. That is why we have chosen to provide ring-fenced funding for schedule 2 courses for adults, and that is why we have given a categorical assurance that local education authorities will have no excuse for raising students' fees or cancelling classes as a result of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) raised the question of capital funding. Capital funding for LEA-maintained institutions, including those which do schedule 2 work, will come from LEAs, and we shall expect LEAs to bid for capital allocations as they do at present.

The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe asked whether a countywide service could apply through one further education college. The answer is yes. The hon. Member for Oxford, East referred to the consultants' report. Ministers have not yet received that report, but as I have said, when they do it will be placed in the Library. In the meantime, the Labour party might urge Labour-controlled LEAs which have not yet returned their questionnaires about the provision of adult education to the Department to do so.

My hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) spoke eloquently about community colleges in Devon. I have not had the pleasure of discussing the Devon case with them, but I have discussed the position in Leicestershire in considerable detail with my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). I recognise the very considerable service provided by community colleges to adult education. I am wholly committed to open and flexible learning, and I accept that community colleges provide a type of open and flexible learning which is especially suitable to rural communities.

The Bill contains sound mechanisms to secure the funding of schedule 2 education which is provided in adult colleges and centres and in community colleges. There are three methods. The first is incorporation through clause 16, but I know that my hon. Friends believe--understandably--that that is not appropriate for most community colleges.

Another method which has been drawn to the Committee's attention is that of designation under clause 28. There has been some misunderstanding about designation because it is not appropriate for a college or institution which is not an independent legal entity. Therefore, as my hon. Friends have made clear, most community providers will decide to use clause 6(5).

---

Column 256

Under clause 6(5), further education colleges must forward the community college application to the councils where the provision in question would not otherwise be adequate in the area --that is, the application from the community college. It is the specific purpose of clause 6(5) that community providers should have the opportunity to have their schedule 2 work considered for funding by the funding councils. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that there will be a number of safeguards to ensure that that happens.

For the procedure to work effectively, there will need to be a clear framework and the Government will assist by giving guidance on the procedure for schedule 2 applications. Indeed, a circular letter has recently issued from the Further Education Funding Council unit which provides initial guidance to institutions on clause 5. That guidance will be supplemented at a later date by further guidance on procedures. I recommend my hon. Friends who have not yet seen the guidance which was issued on 28 February to study it. It states : "If it"--

the further education college--

"decides not to support such an application, it will be expected to give its reasons for not doing so. The LEA institution"--

in other words, the community college--

"will have the right to appeal against the decision to the Council."

However, protection for community colleges goes further than an appeal to the council. Of course, I expect that this procedure of application to a further education college and then, if necessary, an appeal to the council will sort out almost all--if not all--the problems which might arise, but if the community provider is still not satisfied it is open to the community institution to appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on the ground that the FE college or the council has acted unreasonably or has failed in its statutory duty. The Secretary of State will seek to deal expeditiously with such complaints. If it is not possible to resolve the matter before the funding council announces its annual allocation--this was the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton--it will be possible to hold back the small sums involved for later distribution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton mentioned structure in terms of the methodology of bidding. Community colleges will be able to bid to the funding council for a package of provision according to the timetable that has been set down. It will not be a matter merely of waiting to see whether the students turn up, as my hon. Friend implied. Bidding will be well in advance, on a timetable, so that colleges and community providers will know exactly what courses they can lay on.

We believe that it is right that applications from community colleges and other community providers should go through the appropriate FE college. We believe that the FE colleges will act responsibly in response to local demands for courses. In most cases, if not the vast majority of cases, they will accept the bids put forward by the community colleges. We are totally committed to better quality adult education and to more being available in all areas. I urge the House to reject the new clause.

It being Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker,-- pursuant to Order [11 February], put the Question already proposed from the Chair. The House divided : Ayes 218, Noes 300.

---

Column 257

Division No. 105] [10 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Alton, David

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Armstrong, Hilary

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Ashton, Joe

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Barron, Kevin

Beckett, Margaret

Beggs, Roy

Beith, A. J.

Bell, Stuart

Bellotti, David

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Benton, Joseph

Bermingham, Gerald

Blunkett, David

Boateng, Paul

Boyes, Roland

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Caborn, Richard

Callaghan, Jim

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Canavan, Dennis

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Carr, Michael

Cartwright, John

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Clelland, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Cohen, Harry

Corbett, Robin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Cousins, Jim

Crowther, Stan

Cryer, Bob

Cummings, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Dalyell, Tam

Darling, Alistair

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Dewar, Donald

Dixon, Don

Dobson, Frank

Doran, Frank

Duffy, Sir A. E. P.

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Eadie, Alexander

Eastham, Ken

Enright, Derek

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Farr, Sir John

Fatchett, Derek

Faulds, Andrew

Fearn, Ronald

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Fisher, Mark

Flannery, Martin

Flynn, Paul

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Foster, Derek

Foulkes, George

Fraser, John

Fyfe, Maria

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Gordon, Mildred

Gould, Bryan

Graham, Thomas

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Grocott, Bruce

Hain, Peter

Hardy, Peter

Haynes, Frank

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Henderson, Doug

Hinchliffe, David

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Home Robertson, John

Hood, Jimmy

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Howells, Geraint

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Hoyle, Doug

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Illsley, Eric

Ingram, Adam

Janner, Greville

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Kilfoyle, Peter

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Lambie, David

Leadbitter, Ted

Leighton, Ron

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Lewis, Terry

Litherland, Robert

Livingstone, Ken

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Loyden, Eddie

McAllion, John

McAvoy, Thomas

McCartney, Ian

Macdonald, Calum A.

McFall, John

McGrady, Eddie

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

McKelvey, William

McLeish, Henry

McMaster, Gordon

McNamara, Kevin

McWilliam, John

Madden, Max

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Marek, Dr John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Martlew, Eric

Meacher, Michael

Meale, Alan

Michael, Alun

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Morgan, Rhodri

Morley, Elliot

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mowlam, Marjorie

---