---

Further Education and Training Bill [HL]

My Lords, I shall concentrate on Clauses 2 and 3. I am puzzled by the hurry with which this Bill has been put forward and worried by the lack of clarity surrounding plans to restructure the LSC. How has this uncertainty come about? First, there is little or no guidance in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes, which state: "““The commitment to restructure the LSC was set out in the March 2006 White Paper ‘Further Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances’””." Paragraph 40, on page 11, of the White Paper states: "““To play the role set out in this White Paper, the LSC will strengthen its regional capacity””." On page 84, paragraph 7.34 says: "““As part of its restructuring, the LSC is strengthening its capacity to plan and commission with partners … across the region””—" which I think should read ““regions””— "““That will be backed up by a stronger non-executive regional structure. At local level, the LSC is establishing 148 LSC partnership teams, covering the same areas as local authorities””." The next paragraph says: "““The strengthened regional and local tiers … means that the current structure of 47 local LSCs will need to change””." We know now that Clause 3 defines the future of the 47 local LSCs not as change but as abolition. So far, nothing leads us to Clause 2 and regional councils. What did we know about the existing nine non-statutory regional boards? First, that the LSC has expected them to become statutory, and now the Minister has said that they will. That makes for some clarity in amplification of new Section 18A, introduced by Clause 2, which, at present, leaves it to the Secretary of State to specify the number and geography of the proposed areas of England. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, asked, what has happened to the 148 partnerships with local authorities? Presumably they will continue. The trouble is that new Section 18A is no more than an enabling measure, prompting questions other than, ““Will there be nine?””. For example, under new Section 18A(3)(j), the Secretary of State can make provision for, "““the attendance of a representative of the Secretary of State at, and the participation of such a representative in, any meeting of a regional council””." What will the representative do? Will he deliver the Secretary of State’s directions on the strategy to be followed by the LSC, as envisaged in new Section 24B? It is almost as though the Government were using Clause 2 to think out loud; yet, only six years ago, all the usual and expected provisions for the 47 wereset out in the 2000 Act, with the LSC retaining responsibility for much of the detail. Why is there a change in the arrangements for the nine? There is no good reason why the Government have not decided what to do, and not put it clearly in the Bill in the usual way. As the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, said, the membership of regional councils is of great interest to Parliament. It is unhelpful to present us with this widely drawn and unusual clause. It would leave too much discretion to the Secretary of State and too much doubt in the minds of the LSC and the further education sector. Left as it is, we would speculate, as would the LSC, because, despite the referendum in the north-east, regions remain the darlings of the Government. Who is to say which body will be reformed out of existence next in the pursuit of nine city-based centres of power? Will the Minister look again at Clause 2? Draft regulations are a poor substitute for provisions in the Bill. As it is, it is a pity that the confirmation of the nine was left until today. However, there is no need to stop there.