---

Further Education and Training Bill [HL]

As the noble Baroness indicated, the support for such a change goes wider than the current Mayor. I refer to what one might consider a slight oddity—the argument that the inclusion of the word ““shall”” would make the regulations permanent when, of course, a future Government could change the primary legislation. However, the measure would be a recognition of the importance of the devolution package in London. The current Mayor is a controversial figure, but any mayor might be subject to the Government wondering how they could pull back on devolution. For that reason I support what the noble Baroness said. I recognise that the Government are already some way down this road. The Minister has circulated some details on that. The board has already been appointed and has met. The Minister also referred to directions. I do not want to repeat the points that I made at Second Reading—which the noble Baroness made very strongly—about the importance of London’s government being involved in skills and training. The issues link closely with other areas of the Mayor’s responsibility. It makes perfect sense that the Mayor should have such responsibilities. As I say, I and others would be happy to see the arrangements go further than they do here. I understand the difficulty that the Minister will be in. The noble Baroness is a greater veteran than I of the may/shall argument. I cannot recall that one has ever won it, but that does not devalue the argument. The Minister said in his letter to my noble friend Lady Walmsley that regulations establishing the board, "““and directions and guidance given to it, under powers provided in the Bill, will put the Board’s work on a firm statutory footing””." I emphasise those last three words. If the Minister could say more about permanence, that would be extremely helpful.