---

Further Education and Training Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 19: 19: Clause 4, page 3, line 37, leave out ““directions and”” The noble Viscount said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 22, 24 and 25, for which I am sure the Minister will be grateful. Directions are a power subject to no parliamentary procedure. They therefore need the most careful scrutiny when included in a Bill, as there is no way back in the way that there is with statutory instruments. The only other line of defence against the arbitrary use of powers by the Executive is practice. The textbooks say that, in practice, directions are for administrative matters, for example accounting procedures, and for matters of last resort. These authorities also say that directions are not used for the control of policy or for decisions on routine matters of management. These restraints are important because, in the rare event that a direction was issued as a matter of last resort, the body concerned must comply or have a duty to comply. ““Must comply”” or ““a duty to comply”” goes to the heart of any non-departmental public body’s independence, and if it is not independent why have it in the first place? In new Sections 24A and 24B in Clause 4, no situation of last resort is contemplated. Instead, proposals advanced by the Secretary of State would be by way of an order in the course of policy development, which would be discussed between the bodies concerned. The dialogue could be expected to reach a conclusion satisfactory to the parties. There would be no need for compulsion; guidance would be sufficient. For these reasons, the proposed powers of direction should be left out. I beg to move.