To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect Sir Andrew Foster’s review of the Building Colleges for the Future programme to be complete; and whether they anticipate any delays during the next two years to projects already in that programme.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a member of the corporation of Guildford College.

My Lords, this Government have invested more than £2 billion in modernising FE facilities since 1997 and will spend a further £2.3 billion in the current spending review period. Nearly 400 colleges in England have been modernised, and the programme has delivered real improvements to learners and communities. Sir Andrew Foster will complete his review shortly and will make his recommendations to the department. Of the 253 colleges that have been given final approval, there will be no delay to these projects.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but can he explain how it is that neither his department nor the DCSF, which are jointly responsible for the LSC, was aware that the LSC was encouraging and sanctioning a capital spending programme that was three to four times the amount of funds available? Is he aware of the problems that this potential overspend has caused to the colleges that are at the moment in the queue, some of which have projects half-completed? Is he confident that the LSC, even under its new acting chief executive, is capable of sorting out the mess that it has created?

My Lords, can we give a complete answer at this point in time? No. I suppose that Donald Rumsfeld summed it up when he said that there were “unknown unknowns”. This was certainly the case. We were not aware of the extent of encouragement that undoubtedly was given by the LSC. That is why, in the circumstances, Mark Haysom, the chief executive, acknowledged his accountability and resigned. Do we believe that the new chief executive will be able to do the job? Yes, we do. He comes with a good pedigree, so to speak, and the right sort of experience. The full extent of why officials in my department were not fully advised of what was going on will be revealed when Sir Andrew Foster gives the department his report. We hope to have it in the next few days.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that further education colleges, such as the wonderful Working Men’s College in Camden, which I once had the honour of chairing, fulfil a vital regeneration role in their neighbourhoods? Can he give an assurance that projects such as that for the Working Men’s College that have received approval in principle, have started and are now half way through a two-stage project, all with the agreement of the Learning and Skills Council, will get priority over projects that have yet to start and have not even had approval yet?

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her question. I have a strange feeling that I attended that college just a year or two ago. I cannot give her an assurance now that the projects will go ahead because the new chief executive will review the situation on a case-by-case basis. I know that some concern was expressed because this is one of the smaller colleges. I can give her an assurance that each project, regardless of size, will be assessed equally against the same criteria.

My Lords, I did not notice in the Minister’s initial Answer his acknowledging that there is a problem at all. How many colleges will have committed money that will be lost as a result of this fiasco and how much money in total?

My Lords, I had to keep my Answer brief. Of course we recognise that there is a problem; that is why we appointed Sir Andrew Foster. I would just ask for perhaps a little bit of, shall we say, humility. When we inherited the further education college situation in 1997, the National Audit Office told us that FE college buildings were,

“ageing and their quality and fitness for purpose was often unsatisfactory, affecting the reputation of the sector”.

Since then, we have spent £2 billion improving and modernising 400 college facilities. I ask you to recognise that situation. There are 79 colleges that have received their first stage of approval in principle, which would probably amount to about £2.7 billion in funding to proceed, and a further 65 requiring a further £3 billion in government funding. It is evident that not all these projects will be affordable in the short term and priorities will have to be set. That is why we have called for the independent report by Sir Andrew Foster.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, we have not yet heard from the Liberal Democrats.

My Lords, given that many colleges’ rebuilding programmes have planning permission and are ready to go, thereby creating jobs and apprentice places in the construction industry, how far do the Government propose to use them as a means of combating the recession? Has the department had any discussions on that point with the Treasury?

My Lords, yes we have. We want to use that programme to pull some of the colleges forward but, given where we are at this point, we have to assess each college on a case-by-case basis. However, the point that you make is valid.

My Lords, can the Minister tell us the state of the colleges in 1979? To come up to date, how much of the £609 million of the LSC capital budget for 2009-10 will now be spent on capital projects?

No, my Lords, I cannot tell you about 1979. I would have thought that you would be more concerned about the state in which you left the colleges in 1997—I say “you” collectively rather than individually. After the NAO report said that they were in a dire state, for you to somehow suggest—

Order!

My Lords, I apologise. For the noble Baroness to somehow suggest that what we have done has not been a fantastic improvement surprises me. Yes, we intend to go ahead with the capital programme but, as I said, we need to review each project on a case-by-case basis.