| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Wicks: At this hour, several important and detailed points have been raised. I shall do my best to answer them, but if I do not do so in the detail required, I apologise and promise to write to right hon. and hon. Members later.
I understand the Liberal Democrats' position on new clause 19 and their allegiance to regionalism. We discussed in some detail the pros and cons of that in relation to learning and skills in the Standing Committee. The new clause is designed to establish a relationship between the learning and skills councils and the regional dimension embodied in the regional development agencies. I am sympathetic to that aim, but I think that the new clause presents the wrong course.
As we have said before, the regional dimension of an influential role for RDAs and their regional skills strategies is clearly provided for in the Bill. Furthermore, local learning and skills councils will draw in broad representation from outstanding local individuals and the wider business community, with relevant expertise to ensure that Government-supported learning and skills delivery meets the needs of individuals, businesses and their communities at national, regional, sectoral and local level.
We expect local LSCs to play an important role in partnerships established by regional development agencies and other bodies, such as local authorities and the Small Business Service. I hope that with those reassurances and the more detailed reassurances that I gave in Committee about the consultation process between the RDAs and the LSCs, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will be reassured of our good intention to relate the local to the regional with regard to learning and skills.
On new clause 10 and the issue of London, I thank the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for drawing this important matter to our attention. As a London Member myself, I take it extremely seriously. I remind the House that the London development partnership recommended that there should be five local LSCs in London and a co-ordinating mechanism to make sure that pan-London issues are dealt with effectively. The right hon. Gentleman, as a student of London governance over the years, understands the importance of London and the difficulties relating to boundaries within London.
At one stage there were some interesting arguments in favour of one learning and skills council for London, but because of the sheer size we thought that that would be a step too far for the interests of Londoners. We have repeatedly made it clear that we accept both conclusions presented to us--the need for five LSCs for London, and the need for a pan-London mechanism that would operate with a fairly light touch. There should be no question of our presenting the House with a recommendation for a new layer of bureaucracy.
As we prepare the ground for the new post-16 landscape, the Government office for London is engaged in discussions with key external partners, including representatives of the local authorities, training and enterprise councils, colleges, employers, trade unions and
the voluntary sector, about how the co-ordinating arrangement might operate and the issues that it would address. It would then be for the LSC chair and chief executive, in discussion with the five London local LSCs, to decide on the detailed arrangements. The work is under way already. We do not believe that we need statutory provision for those arrangements.In describing what we need as a light touch, I do not mean one that is insubstantial. The issues in Greater London are considerable. Clearly, at a time when Parliament has re-established a Greater London Authority and the people of London have just elected their first Mayor, it is entirely appropriate that we examine Greater London issues. With those assurances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment. I thank him for raising an important issue.
In speaking to the Government amendments to schedules 1 and 2, I give due credit to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), whose eye for detail first enabled us in Committee to spot the possible need for an amendment to schedule 1. The point that he made was that the chair or chief executive of the national Learning and Skills Council, both of whom will be LSC board members, should be eligible for re-appointment to their additional roles as chair and chief executive, as well as for re-appointment as LSC board members.
The hon. Gentleman agreed at that time to withdraw his amendment to allow for an examination of that point in relation to other provisions in the Bill. The result is a set of technical amendments in respect of the national LSC, local LSCs, the Welsh council and its committees, as well as the adult learning inspectorate, which ensure that provisions in the relevant schedules are consistent in their effects on issues of membership, tenure and re-appointment. The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, gain some well-deserved satisfaction from seeing that Government amendment No. 42 is identical to that tabled by him in Committee. I thank him for his close scrutiny of our Bill.
9.45 pm
In respect of new clause 1, the Government entirely agree with the Liberal Democrats about the importance of improving the participation of women in science and engineering courses. The fact that I am replying briefly to the considered speech of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) takes nothing away from that, or the importance of participation in the industries for which they prepare.
The number of girls and women studying science has gone up in recent years, and the DTI has been actively campaigning to improve the situation still further, especially in engineering. Of course, the LSC will collect comprehensive information on subjects being studied and on student achievements in all areas of post-16 learning, including science and engineering courses, and we expect it to make the figures publicly available. I think that that is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman wanted. The FEFC publishes statistics for each academic year on student numbers in the various subject areas, which includes a breakdown of students by gender, age and mode of study. We expect the LSC to continue this activity, and the provisions in the Bill allow for that without any further amendment. The hon. Gentleman may therefore consider withdrawing what I think was an important probing amendment on an important subject.
I understand and sympathise with the sentiments behind amendment No. 104, which calls for information. On the basis of that, we have had a brief discussion on the nature of Connexions as a universal service. I shall say no more about that now, because a later set of amendments will enable us to discuss it a little more fully. I say simply that we are committed to Connexions as a universal service for all of our 13-year-olds to 19-year-olds.
The Government are already developing systems to capture information relating to the local information, advice and guidance services, including their quality, efficiency and impact. The Secretary of State will set priorities for information, advice and guidance provision as part of the process of allocating funds to the LSC. Depending on the nature of these priorities, the Secretary of State will devolve responsibility for managing the appropriate information systems needed to support him.
Finally, I come to the remaining Government amendments to the LSC's functions. We have always made it crystal clear that the provisions in the Bill which set out the LSC's functions will encompass both work force development and economic regeneration activity. Indeed, these matters are at the heart of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 make that explicit.
In Committee, we reflected on the priority for work force development at the local level through an amendment to the provisions governing the local LSC's plans. Amendment No. 31 to clause 16 represents the second half of a commitment we made in Committee. It makes it explicit that at the national level the LSC's strategy must set out how it intends to develop the skills of people in the work force, while ensuring that that does not inadvertently affect the interpretation of the LSC's overall remit.
In Government amendment No. 32 we return to the territory of local LSC plans. It makes explicit our commitment to economic development and regeneration by providing that a local LSC's plans must include a statement of the likely affect of its activities on the wider economic development and regeneration of its area. No one should now be able to doubt what is already set out in the "Learning to Succeed" White Paper and the prospectus for the Learning and Skills Council: our commitment to give adults the opportunity to continue learning throughout their working life.
I hope that with those explanations and assurances--
Mr. Brooke: I do not wish to be derogatory about the hon. Gentleman's speech, whose spirit I very much appreciate, but he did not really add anything to what I said in speaking to my amendment. However, he said that he would write to me. It would be extremely helpful if he would write with rather more substantive comments on what the Government office for London is achieving in terms of negotiations with the principal stakeholders.
Mr. Wicks: What I sought to do, albeit with an eye slightly on the clock, given the hour and the business before us, was to say that we need a body representing the whole of the Greater London perspective. We are in consultation and we are developing our plans. The right hon. Gentleman, as a fellow Londoner, will be the first to know when we have developed our plans. I hope that the assurances that I have given mean that the hon. Member for Harrogate and
Knaresborough will consider withdrawing the amendment and that hon. Members will support the Government amendments.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |