Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 27 February 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Further Education and Training Bill [HL].


Further Education and Training Bill [HL]

My Lords, I do not need to repeat the excellent points made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who spoke even more eloquently on this matter than they did in Committee. I also pay tribute to the work that has evidently gone on behind the scenes in the creationof these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the right reverend Prelate proposed two amendments that offer two alternative methods of achieving wider and better provision of spiritual guidance in FE colleges. As I am sure the Minister will agree, their arguments are irresistible. Surely he will acknowledge that it is at best odd, and at worst inconsistent, that one 16 year-old should be entitled to pastoral care or spiritual care and guidance while another is deprived of it purely by virtue of the educational establishment that they attend. This issue is so important to the general well-being of students, and to the contribution of FE colleges to their wider communities. I have great sympathy with the difficulties that the right reverend Prelate encountered in Committee. It seems that the Bill has been drawn so narrowly as to preclude the inclusion of a substantive amendment to encourage the adoption of either spiritual, moral and cultural guidance as proposed by the right reverend Prelate, or pastoral care as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I shall be very interested to read the Ecumenical Agency’s report later in the year. Can the Minister assure noble Lords that he will take its recommendations into account and that he will communicate to it whether he intends to introduce policy following the report? Amendment No. 49 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, makes for familiar reading, as she said. I recall reading in the Official Report that, during the passage of the education Bill last summer, the Government accepted amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats that placed a duty on governing bodies to promote well-being. The terms of this amendment cover similar ground but add to that duty a duty to promote community cohesion. I warmly support the principle behind the noble Baroness’s amendment; nobody can disagree with the importance of promoting well-being and community cohesion. I hope that other noble Lords will agree with me that no further education college would not promote well-being and community cohesion. Amendment No. 49 raises an important issue, for which I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but I believe that this is a matter of social responsibility and should not be a statutory requirement. We are concerned that the law as it applies to children might be invoked with respect to adults, as could be the case were this amendment accepted. That is our reservation on AmendmentNo. 49.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c1520-1 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disciplinary proceedings Companies Finance Fees and charges Education Governing bodies Further education Greater London Higher education Franchises Learning and Skills Council for England Educational institutions Dismissal Local government Standards Training Religion Wales Vocational education Students London Assembly Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education Foundation degrees Labour market
Legislation
Further Education and Training Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk