---

Further Education and Training Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 23: 23: Clause 4 , page 4, line 16, leave out ““may”” and insert ““shall”” The noble Baroness said: As we know, Clause 4, line 16, of the Bill makes provision that: "““The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the establishment of a body for the purposes of discharging the functions set out in subsection (2)””." The object of my amendment is to change ““may”” to ““shall””. I want to explain exactly why I have tabled it. The effect of the provisions is that the Secretary of State would provide in regulations for the Mayor to chair and appoint a body which would formulate a strategy for certain functions of the LSC within the Greater London area. Those functions would be specified as the provision of education—other than higher education—and training of the 19-plus population. I think that everybody agrees that there is a need for change. Indeed, the Bill has been generally welcomed throughout London and by the Mayor himself. London faces significant and unique skills and employment challenges. A high percentage of London residents are qualified to degree level—31 per cent compared to the national average of 26 per cent. However, 25 per cent of the population are not qualified to basic employability level, the equivalent of at least five good GCSEs, and 14 per cent have no qualifications whatever. Moreover, London has the highest unemployment rate in the country, at 7.5 per cent, and an employment rate 5 per cent below the national average. A number of factors lie behind this high unemployment and low employment rate. Skill levels are only one dimension, but a key one. There is also a very high level of child poverty, which is again dependent on the high unemployment rate. These major challenges need to be addressed at a London-wide level, reflecting the significant differences in skills and employment between the capital and the rest of the UK. As a Londoner with a background in the trade union movement, these issues are of considerable personal concern to me. The Mayor argued in response to the Government’s review of powers of the GLA that responsibility for skills should be devolved in London to the Mayor. That apparently has been agreed, with the apparent proviso that it is discretionary rather than a continuing, permanent commitment. London business, the boroughs, the London Assembly and other stakeholders also support some devolution of skills powers in London to the Mayor. Three-quarters of responses on skills to the Government’s review favoured the Mayor having a stronger role in skills. In July 2006 the Government asked the Mayor to establish an employer-led London Skills and Employment Board. This held its first meeting on 6 December 2006, drawing together some of the capital’s leading representatives from business, education and other areas. The new board is the first of its kind in England and represents a step-change in employment and skills policy in London. It will develop a strategy that specifically addresses the needs both of the London economy and of Londoners. This is similar to the proposals by Leitch and represents an important step towards developing a demand-led approach to skills development and training. The Mayor welcomes the establishment of the new board and is committed to making it a success. But I understand that he is concerned that the clauses in the Bill underpinning it are put in temporary terms; in other words, it is a case of ““may”” rather than ““shall””. In order to secure the long-term position of the new arrangements I have put down this amendment, which would remove the discretionary element and impose on the Secretary of State an obligation to establish an advisory body to formulate a strategy for specified functions. In this way the benefits of the proposal put forward in the Bill will be assured. It is important for the board and its strategy to be given a permanent basis in London, to ensure the highest level of business engagement with the board and to enable the new arrangements to develop long-term strategic plans for the capital without risk of being disbanded by a new Secretary of State at any time. The amendment would help deliver on this commitment while working within the broad terms for the board agreed between the Government and the Mayor. I commend the amendment to the Committee. I hope that the Government will see the point of it and will agree that it is worth having a situation in which it is clear that these provisions are permanent and cannot be removed at the discretion of a future Secretary of State. I beg to move.