asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the forward sale of tickets to the Millennium Dome Experience is adequate to ensure that the whole project will run at a profit by the end of the year.

My Lords, the New Millennium Experience Company never expected a full house in January—very few other visitor attraction sites are full at this time of year. NMEC is extremely encouraged by the continuing upward trend in visitor numbers and is confident that it will sell enough tickets to break even. Independent polls show that visitors have overwhelmingly enjoyed the Dome and would recommend it to their friends.

My Lords, setting aside the merits and demerits of the Dome project and while thanking the Minister for that reply, I ask him whether he will accept how sorry I am about recent events. Will he say whether he considers that the chairman and board of directors of NMEC have been properly supportive of their erstwhile chief executive? If so, why have they not shouldered at least some of the responsibility for the present crisis and resigned? If they did not wish to support the former chief executive, why did they not take action earlier?

My Lords, the former chief executive of the Dome company, Jennie Page, did a magnificent job. She delivered the Dome on time and on budget on 31st. December 1999. I do not believe that any other person could have worked so well as she has done. However, the board of the company concluded that the Dome needed a different kind of management for the way forward; namely, running a visitor attraction. That was a matter for the board. The decision was taken earlier last month that that would be the way forward. I believe that it was the right decision to take.

My Lords, in the interests of bringing more young people to the Dome, can the Minister confirm whether there are plans to have Mickey Mouse shaking hands at the door?

My Lords, the new management will not "Disneyfy" the Dome, but will manage it as efficiently as possible as a visitor attraction.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister a question that relates to one I put to him some time ago? He gave me a very reasonable answer at the time. The question I then asked was: what would happen if the projections in terms of turnover were not met and the sponsors became restive? I presume that they have agreed to the content, to which they have contributed money. However, now we are in the position of knowing that the projections have not quite come up to the original estimates and some sponsors have expressed concern. How does the Minister see the progress of the relationship between the company and individual sponsors, in particular those sponsors who have not yet put into the pot the full sums that they pledged?

My Lords, like everyone else, the sponsors had concerns about the first few weeks of the Dome's operation. Those concerns have been discussed with the management of the New Millennium Experience Company. While they have made clear their precise concerns, they have also all made it clear that they remain firmly behind the Dome. In addition, short-term finance has been made available by the Millennium Commission to deal in part with the fact that visitor numbers at the beginning of the year have not been as high as was expected. However, everyone—the sponsors, NMEC and the Millennium Commission—is satisfied that the Dome can continue and can be a success.

My Lords, I speak as one who has visited the Dome. Does my noble friend agree that people would not recognise the experience from the one described in press reports? Would he further agree that if people go along to see for themselves, they are sure to enjoy it?

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. A large number of polls have been carried out that show how much people have enjoyed their visits to the Dome. The polls—the majority of them produced by the media, which have not been altogether enthralled by the Dome—indicate levels of 80 to 90 per cent satisfaction and record 70 to 80 per cent of respondents as saying that they would recommend the Dome to a friend.

My Lords, further to the question put to the Minister by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, does the Minister recall telling the House on 12th January that he was proud to say that he was the sole shareholder of the company and that no taxpayers' money of any kind would be used to make good a shortfall? Does he still stand by the comment he made, that he personally could afford to make good the result of any such shortfall?

My Lords, my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip says that even now they are holding a whip-round behind me. I stand by the point I made on a previous occasion that not a penny of taxpayers' money will be used to make good any shortfall.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most remarkable achievements of the Dome has been to get the Christian Churches to work together? That in itself is a remarkable achievement. However, leaders of the other faith communities also joined in with those consultations to produce the Faith Zone. Not only does it celebrate all that is good about Christianity and its contribution to society, but it also celebrates the other faith communities of this country. Does the Minister agree that this is a valuable contribution to the celebrations we are rightly enjoying that Britain is now a multi-faith and multi-cultural society?

My Lords, I agree with all that the noble Baroness has said. The Faith Zone is a great tribute to the Christian Churches and other faiths all working together. When one visits the Dome, one sees significant numbers of people visiting the Faith Zone. They are entranced by what they see and are enjoying a useful and purposeful experience.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that no business can be run effectively if earlier projections do not materialise? Projections are made on the basis of a management team ensuring that those forecasts will be accurate.

My Lords, I believe that all businesses start with sensible projections. Sometimes they become knocked off course, but usually they are able to get back on course and make a success of it.

My Lords, was it not the case that the sponsors took a view that attendances were disappointingly low? Is that not totally at odds with the statement with which the Minister first began?

My Lords, the sponsors were concerned about a number of matters. The statement which I made at the beginning was that NMEC is extremely encouraged by the continuing upward trend in visitor numbers and is confident that it will sell enough tickets to break even. Nothing that I have said is inconsistent with the views that have been expressed by the sponsors.

My Lords, was the post to replace Jennie Page advertised, and were the Nolan procedures followed?

My Lords, it was not advertised. It would not be appropriate to apply the Nolan procedures to a post such as this. It would have taken approximately five to six months to go through the procedures and, in any case, they do not apply.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What will be the status of established British hallmarks following the possible implementation of a draft harmonisation directive of the European Union.

My Lords, the answer to this Question will depend upon the exact terms of EU harmonising legislation, if and when that is finally adopted. The wording of the current Commission proposal for a directive on the control and marking of articles of precious metals is ambiguous on the status of established hallmarks. However, it could be interpreted as prohibiting national hallmarks in favour of an "e" mark denoting compliance with the directive's requirements. The Government cannot accept the proposed directive in its current form.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am very pleased to hear his last sentence? Does he agree that for 700 years the British hallmark has been the earliest form of continuous consumer protection but is now seen as a barrier to trade? Furthermore, does he agree that, under new European legislation, the marks of many European countries will become valid here, thus creating consumer confusion?

My Lords, I totally agree that our hallmarking system is extremely good. I believe that, if it had not been invented in the Middle Ages, we would now be looking forward to it as a new piece of consumer protection. The situation regarding the EU directive is a little more complicated. It involves all three kinds of marking: that of the manufacturer's declaration, product quality assurance and hallmarking. However, we feel that it would lead to a diminution of consumer protection and that is why we have opposed it thus far.

My Lords, for the convenience of the House, will the Minister make available the draft directive referred to in the Question? My noble friend will be aware that there have been two draft directives: one issued in October 1993 and the other, following a debate in this House, in April 1996. It would be helpful if the document could be identified. Will my noble friend ensure that, in accordance with the Cabinet Office directive of June last year, a regulatory impact assessment is made of the directive and circulated to all those concerned, including Members of this House and larger interested parties in the country?

My Lords, I should make it clear that this directive was first discussed in 1992. A compromise was raised in the autumn of, I believe, 1998 under the Austrian presidency. The Portuguese presidency does not intend to re-open the issue, and it is opposed both by people such as ourselves, who have a very good hallmarking system, and those who do not have one. It is rather difficult to see how both those parties' interests can be met. I shall of course ensure that the documents are produced and, if it appears that a directive is forthcoming, I am sure that a regulatory impact statement will be produced.

My Lords, when the Government say that they intend to oppose the directive in any of its present forms, will the Minister confirm to the House that the issue is being taken under single market legislation, which will, of course, allow the United Kingdom, as usual, to be outvoted, and that therefore the Government's opposition is worth nothing in that circumstance?

My Lords, as I made clear, the directive was opposed by ourselves, those countries which have strong hallmarking traditions and those which do not have any. Therefore, even under the system of qualified majority voting, a strong group is against the directive and we shall make certain, as far as we can, that the legislation does not go through.

My Lords, without wishing to dispute anything that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, says about the antiquity of the hallmark, will the Minister confirm that no institution has been British for 700 years and that the adoption of the hallmark as a British institution is the result of a process of harmonisation?

My Lords, as always, we are entirely in favour of harmonisation as long as it is on our terms.

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, for once, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not correct? Has the House of Lords not been a British institution for 700 years?

My Lords, I am afraid that for us simple grocers such a historical matter is far too complicated. I was merely concentrating on the commercial aspects.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, if the EU directive comes into force, the quality of silver and other precious metal products will be diminished because a lower quantity of silver will be allowable in such products than is allowable at present?

My Lords, I do not believe that that issue will be affected. In all cases products will be marked with the amount of fineness in them. Therefore, I do not believe that lower quality products will come into the country because of that directive. We are concerned with distinguishing the basis of the quality control or hallmarking.

My Lords, under British hallmarking, do we not have 92.5 per cent silver in products, whereas, under the EU directive, products will contain only 80 per cent pure silver?

My Lords, I believe that a system already exists whereby products containing different standards of silver can come in with different amounts of fineness in them.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they propose to take any action following the decision of the American cargo airline FedEx to cancel flights to Prestwick.

My Lords, the decision of FedEx to cancel its daily Memphis-Prestwick-Paris service within a year of its inauguration will have disappointed all those who had believed that the airline was making a genuine commitment to Scotland. However, although it is not for the Government to question the logic of the company's decision, I am confident that Prestwick will commend itself to competing cargo carriers intent on developing the market.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and I am as disappointed as he is that FedEx has decided to pull out. Is it not embarrassing for the Government, having given a unilateral gift to the Americans, for which our airlines received nothing in exchange, that FedEx should have pulled out so soon after commencing the service? Perhaps I can quote the Minister who said that that was,

"a gesture of goodwill which will see FedEx on our side in their attempts to try and woo the American position because our main priority as we have stressed is still to get the rights for British carriers in the United States".

Can the Minister say precisely what progress was made a couple of weeks ago in talks with the United States Government on aviation rights? How long did those talks last? What can we hope to achieve from them?

My Lords, the rationale behind the Government's original decision was eminently sensible. FedEx's decision to invest in the service promised to deliver benefits to the airport and to Scotland. The decision calls into question not only the regional economic benefits that would have come from the service, but also FedEx's commitment to Prestwick, given that the prize that FedEx really sought was fifth freedom rights from Stansted. I believe that we are now entitled to speculate on whether they would have closed their Prestwick operations in any event if and when rights at Stansted were granted. Certainly the company's tenuous commitment to Prestwick tends to support that pessimistic speculation.

In terms of what influence the company brought to bear on the United States Government, it had offered, as others have done, to use its best endeavours to try to bring the Government round to seeing that our policy of liberalisation was preferable to the policy of "open skies" advocated by the Americans. In conducting any negotiations I was always mindful that I had been warned by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that the phrase "open skies" means one thing to us and something different to the Americans. As far as the noble Lord was concerned, it would mean that ownership and control, cabotage, wet leasing, the instruction for American state employees to "fly America" and so forth would all be taken into account in any dealings that we had. Indeed, that was never far from our minds.

We believe that we have shown a flexibility and willingness to help the Americans to solve their problems. However, they still deny our carriers the rights that they demand for theirs.

My Lords, given the disappointing news about the FedEx decision to withdraw from Prestwick, will the Minister comment on the general strength of our aviation relationship with the United States? In particular, can he tell the House whether he believes that the Americans are behaving as unreasonably as they appear to be?

My Lords, since the early 1990s the United Kingdom has promoted full liberalisation in transatlantic aviation. We have been willing to help the United States to solve their problems with flights from Pittsburgh to London. Over a number of years, compared with the United States, we have been far more willing to act; for instance, to enable Virgin to operate a service to Las Vegas we have made a number of proposals that would allow it to operate a Pittsburgh-London service—only to be castigated for intransigence and unhelpfulness. However, we remain willing to work for a balanced deal.

My Lords, in future will the Minister enter into only reciprocal agreements, combined with long-term commitments? What success was there in gaining wet lease access by UK carriers into the US market?

My Lords, we had a limited response to the suggestion that our carriers may be allowed the same kind of freedoms that the Americans have in the United Kingdom and in Europe. A suggestion was made that our carriers should be able to fly into America under wet leasing arrangements, but after arriving their hire would be restricted. That was not an attractive proposition for us. We believe that we must show flexibility and willingness, but we must also assume that any deal must be a balanced deal.

My Lords, will the Minister accept that his last comment about showing flexibility merely suggests to some noble Lords that once more he will go down the path of giving a concession without getting one in return, and that that applies as much to the important aspects of freight carriage as it does to passenger transport? On a wider matter, will he agree that it is time to start talking to the Americans, who have the largest airline market in the world, on a Europe-to-America basis rather than on a UK-to-US basis which always puts us at a disadvantage as we are a much smaller operator?

My Lords, our belief is that we should not give any concessions to the United States unless there is a balanced deal. We shall weigh the merits of any proposed deal to ensure that the interests of the United Kingdom aviation industry, its consumers and the UK economy are taken fully into account.

On the point of giving the Commission a mandate to negotiate with the United States, the Transport Council of the European Union remains to be persuaded that it should grant the Commission a mandate to negotiate with the United States. In the United Kingdom, our position has not changed. We do not believe that effective bilateral negotiations could proceed simultaneously with community-level talks. Our priority has been, and still is, bilateral negotiations with the United States.

My Lords, has the Minister any information on whether reports that American officials are seeking to ban British Airways Concorde flights across the Atlantic are true? If they are true, what attitude are the British Government taking in the face of that threat?

My Lords, the Government view any threat to abrogate treaty obligations as a potentially serious development. Of course, it would be possible to take proportionate retaliatory action. I hope that the United States Government will recognise that such action would be bad for consumers on both sides of the Atlantic.

My Lords, did I detect at least a slight note of optimism in the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, regarding prospects at Prestwick? Does he envisage the possibility that another cargo carrier may come into Prestwick?

My Lords, the decision of any employer to suspend operations in a particular location is always bad news if that results in lost jobs. In this case the number of jobs that may be lost at Prestwick is 17. In the light of the growth that that airport has displayed recently, we are confident that in future the attractions of Prestwick will be shared by others in the industry. I am hopeful that other air freight carriers will take advantage in the near future of the fifth freedoms that are still extant at Prestwick.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What importance they place on access to services when measuring the quality of life in rural areas.

My Lords, we realise that access to services is an important component of quality of life in rural areas. The Government featured that both in the sustainable development strategy published in May 1999 and as one of the core set of sustainable development indicators in Quality of life counts published in December. The rural White Paper, which will be published later this year, will set out the Government's approach to ensuring reasonable access to services in rural areas.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that there is some confusion on the part of the Government between quality of life indicators and minimum standards of access for service delivery? Perhaps it was that confusion which led the Prime Minister last week to say that the quality of life of elderly people in rural areas was quite rosy because they lived longer, ignoring the fact that in rural areas 92 per cent of parishes have no daycare facilities and many have no GP or daily bus service. That confusion means that rural communities do not know what standard of access to expect. Does the Minister feel that developing a minimum standard of access would be helpful so that we have factual rather than emotive replies to questions concerning rural areas?

My Lords, the balance of the quality of life in rural areas is a complex matter, as it is in urban areas. There are minimum standards in relation to some social services and it is quite clear that there are real problems of access for elderly people and others in rural areas. The remarks of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister related to the general standard of living and well-being comparing rural with urban areas, but recognised at the same time that there are huge disparities in both. Many people in rural areas experience real problems with access, low incomes and a poor quality of life. Any rural policy White Paper will heed to address those complexities.

My Lords, will the Minister explain why in distributing local government grant the Government do not pay due attention to population sparcity, despite the explicit recommendation of their expert advisers that they should do so?

My Lords, geographical disparity is one of a number of criteria. Local indicators of deprivation and other factors are being developed which include that criterion. That will feed forward in relation to local government finance. Of course, there are a huge number of other criteria. One may particularly favour rural areas, but others will favour urban areas. Again, there is no simple answer to the balance of distribution of services.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that one of the measures of quality of life in rural areas is the provision of police services? Having been a village bobby many years ago, I fully appreciate that resources do not permit the level of coverage that we used to have in villages, but will my noble friend encourage chief constables to provide police surgeries in villages from time to time, perhaps with mobile police stations? Not only will that provide reassurance to the community, but it will also be an invaluable source of intelligence about rural crime.

My Lords, without wishing to interfere in the operational decisions of chief constables in my noble friend's area or anywhere else, we need to look at innovative ways to ensure greater access in rural areas to advice and support from the public services, including policing, which have been cut in recent years. I welcome the police force, and other public services, looking at those aspects.

My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that out-of-hours medical services will not be cut in rural areas? Does he agree that if that happened, it would put elderly and disabled people in a dangerous position?

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health indicated that we want not only to maintain services, but also to improve access to services. Again, however, it may be that in certain respects more innovative access to health services may be particularly appropriate in rural areas; for example, NHS Direct may play a major role in that respect.

My Lords, what importance do the Government attach to the retention of post offices, usually associated with a village shop, in terms of the quality of life in rural areas?

My Lords, the presence of, and the distance the average citizen has to travel to, a post office are part of the criteria forming our general indicators. The Government are committed to maintaining a network of rural post offices.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that "services", within the meaning of the Question, include benefit offices? Is he aware that there is a case in Somerset, not one of the most remote areas in the land, of a single parent having to pay £6 in bus fares every time she visits the benefit office? Does he agree that more cases like that may make pressure for an increase in benefit levels irresistible and teach the Treasury—not for the first time—that economy is a very expensive habit?

My Lords, I recognise that there will be difficulties of access to benefit offices but in a sense there always were, and rationalisation of the provision of benefit is bound to create a few problems. Again, the question of access to benefits and to the services of the Department of Social Security could be addressed more effectively in rural areas by more innovative approaches. Of course, in many of the areas of delivery of social security benefits, the Post Office plays an important part.

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister referred in passing to the index of local deprivation, which I understand is being reviewed at present by a bunch of assorted academics from Oxford University. I understand that one of the reasons why there has been a remarkable reduction in the number of London districts which are contained within the top 65 deprived areas is this issue of access to local services. Does my noble friend acknowledge not only that the data backing up those changes should be published, but also that it does not make a great deal of sense to compare very different areas in the country and then try to produce one composite index of deprivation?

My Lords, these issues are complex. Nevertheless, it is important to be able to measure one form of deprivation against another, as long as one understands the context of the components of that index. My noble friend is right. However, the people to whom he refers as a "bunch of academics from Oxford", I refer to as "eminent independent advisers". The basis of that index is out for consultation. I have no doubt that my noble friend's colleagues in London will have comments on it, as will those from rural areas.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 12, after ("statutory") insert ("or standing").

I join the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in his amendment—partly because it is identical to one introduced by one of my honourable friends in another place. The purpose of this simple amendment is consistency, so that all who hold office in the Assembly are treated equally.

The Bill allows some committee chairs to perform their functions without their committees. Clause 1(3) states that no committee of the Assembly,

"is to hold a meeting or conduct any business",

during a suspension. However, subsection (4) states that only the chair or deputy chair of statutory committees will not continue to hold office. In effect, the chair and deputy chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, Procedures Committee, Committee of the Centre, Audit Committee and Public Accounts Committee can continue to carry out their functions without their committees being able to meet to discuss the issues and without chairs and deputy chairs being able to take account of the opinions of their committee members, which seems illogical and indefensible.

In the other place, the Minister focused on the role of the chair within the committee, but there is nothing to hinder the chair continuing his work with the clerk to his committee and external bodies. The chair of the Audit Committee, for example, routinely meets with the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Failure to suspend the chairs of standing committees means that it will not possible for certain elements of the Assembly to continue working through suspension. Is that what the Government intend?

The amendment would ensure that the chairman and deputy chairman of all committees of the Assembly would cease to hold office during suspension, not just the chairman and deputy chairman of statutory committees. I hope to offer both noble Lords reassurance that will go some way to allaying their concerns.

The noble Lord, Lord Smith, pointed out that Clause 1(3) makes it clear that no committees of the Assembly can meet or conduct any business during suspension. That includes statutory and all other committees. All Assembly committees, statutory or standing, will cease to function for the duration of the suspension. Subsection (4) deals only with individuals who hold statutory office under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, just as Clause 3 deals with their reappointment in line with the provisions of that Act.

The Bill does not address the various non-statutory appointments such as the chairmen of standing committees. Nevertheless, they too will cease to exercise any of their functions during a suspension because their committees cannot meet and conduct any business. While emphasising that the suspension provisions in Clause 1 will impact on all committees of the Assembly, I express the hope, on the basis of what I have said, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

I should like to deal with the specific points made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead. As he knows, this Bill deals only with the committees of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It does not deal with either the committees of this Chamber or those of another place. In particular, in does not deal with the Northern Irish Select Committee or the Grand Committee.

It is a matter for both Houses to decide the terms and frequency of the meetings of these committees. As the noble Lord implicitly acknowledges, the frequency of meetings is not affected by this legislation. With respect, I do not think that this is the appropriate place to try to deal with the points he has made. It is a matter for each individual place to decide how best to proceed. In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

I am grateful for the clarification provided by the noble and learned Lord in regard to the points made, especially those made by the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, who may wish to say something in response. In regard to the second point, I freely acknowledge that I was pushing my luck a little and going beyond the terms of reference. However, there is a relationship here. If we can illustrate that the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom is using its mechanisms to the full to look after the needs, wishes and desires of the people of Northern Ireland, it will be much easier to find a solution and an end to the vacuum. That is why I ventured to go a little wider than I should have done. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord but renew my appeal that he should use his very considerable influence to ensure that something is done to restore those committees to their former operational efficiency. In view of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would feel able to accept at the next stage of the Bill a small amendment to Clause 1(3), simply adding at the end the words,

"save that the Secretary of State may enable them to meet in a consultative role".

That wording would meet the point I endeavoured to raise yesterday on Second Reading, to which the noble and learned Lord was kind enough to reply in responding to the debate.

It is a novel way to propose an amendment by asking, "What about thinking about this wording at the next stage?" I dealt with this matter on the last occasion. I said then that the reason why the suspension is being considered is to allow a breathing space because of where we are in relation to the process in Northern Ireland. As I said at the time, Clause 1 prevents the Assembly meeting or conducting any business during a suspension. That means it will not be able to function in a shadow or consultative mode. The Bill is not about providing an alternative role for the Assembly; it is about providing a complete breathing space to allow people to focus their energies on resolving the current difficulties. In the light of that, I am not in a position to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (1).

I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux. I listened with care to the remarks he made. If I interpret the amendments correctly, they would effectively break with the Belfast agreement and could lead to its suspension. I have to point out that all the way through this process my party has linked with the Government in believing in the Belfast agreement and supporting all those who worked for it. We certainly could not countenance any alteration or amendment to the Bill that would endanger the Belfast agreement.

On behalf of these Benches, perhaps I may concur with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Glentoran.

I am not quite sure what the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, is trying to achieve with these amendments. It is possible that they are just a probe. I am not quite clear as to their intention. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has drawn attention to an important point; namely, that the fullest possibly dialogue should proceed in parallel with any review. I say that because dialogue between citizens, politicians and members of parties is, I believe, capable of changing attitudes. Changing attitudes is extremely important for the generation of trust that we all know has been somewhat lacking. That is why I hope that the Government and the Secretary of State will do their very best to promote dialogue at all levels whether or not there is a review going on.

I do not know whether the noble Lord the Minister had noticed that I would be raising an issue at this stage rather than at the further reading because I think it is the time for it to be considered, and it is relevant.

I was not clear yesterday exactly what the two governments expected to review and under whose chairmanship they would do it. I am clear that if the Government has taken us up to the wire, purports to intend to call Sinn Fein/IRA's bluff and to challenge them to make good their implicit commitments, then they should not be offering yet another sop to Cerberus at this late stage that would commit Her Majesty's Government to fall short in its duty to defend the people of Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom whose people, by a substantial majority, voted to stay within the United Kingdom.

In the debate yesterday I referred the possibility of tacit deals that might be proposed to equate the paramilitary arms with those of the regular forces and to lower our defences. I pointed out then that when the IRA speak of the issue of arms they are speaking about the armed forces of the Crown and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, not decommissioning their own paramilitary arms,.

Press reports today suggest—and this is the point on which I should like the view of the noble Lord the Minister—that the Irish Government, in its usual helpful and generous way, is to propose a plan which would involve significant demilitarisation measures by the British in Northern Ireland. By a curious coincidence, Gerry Adams has also been talking about demilitarisation. He is usually aware of what is happening. It is also reported that any initiative from the Republican Movement will be strictly conditional on demilitarisation and the continuation of the new institutions.

The courageous decision, in which I found so much to praise yesterday, may prove to be yet another fudge, purporting to suspend the institutions and appearing to bring a minute amount of pressure to bear on Sinn Fein/IRA, but with both sides knowing that the decision to suspend the institutions is only a manoeuvre and that there is yet another deal under the table designed to give Sinn Fein/IRA yet more, in return for what?

Can the Minister tell us what is the position? I recognise that negotiations are secret and have to be carried on behind the scenes. But since they are creeping out of every crevice of the Irish Times and our own press, I think that we are entitled to have a view; and I did give the Minister notice that I would want it.

I should like to know how the Government propose to justify dismantling defences in IRA "country" in South Armagh and withdrawing forces from a part of Britain while the situation is not, and cannot possibly be considered to be, normal. I have no doubt that the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence will be delighted for their own different reasons, such as severe overstretch in the army. It will be nothing short of disgraceful to offer Sinn Fein/IRA yet one more major act of appeasement. I should not be at all surprised if this—combined with the determination of the Government to proceed also to emasculate the Royal Ulster Constabulary to appease a tiny violent minority—will be the last straw for most of the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government have reflected very carefully on that.

I shall first deal with the preliminary point about the italics which the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, raised. It is customary in another place for provisions which may incur financial expenditure to be printed in italics. Clearly, if and when a review is put in place, there will be associated costs. That was the only reason for the print being in italics.

The essence of Amendments 2 and 3 that we are taking together is to remove the requirement for a review. Suspension will come into effect only if it becomes clear that the political institutions no longer carry cross-community support and confidence. If that is, indeed, the case and the institutions are suspended, it will be essential that we bring the process back on track to a process of discussion and negotiations; in other words, a review. This was recognised during the negotiations that resulted in the Good Friday Agreement. That is why there is a whole section entitled "Validation, Implementation and Review". If suspension occurred without being followed by a review we could find ourselves in a dangerous political vacuum that could lead to the destruction of everything on which we have been working for so long. It would almost certainly cause the end of the Good Friday Agreement. I think it is that view that has led the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, to express the views that they have in this debate.

As has often been said, here and in another place, this legislation is not intended to suspend the agreement. It is intended to save the agreement. I am convinced that it is only through the twin proposal of suspension followed by review that we can reach a positive outcome, not by suspension alone. Consequently, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

I deal with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. There have been articles in the Irish Times yesterday and other newspapers today. I make our position clear. The onus is on the paramilitaries to provide parity on whether, how and when they will decommission. All our efforts with the Irish Government are directed to achieving that. Security measures are determined by the level of threat. As the threat reduces, we will make progress on normalisation. We have already published a paper setting out our strategy for doing so.

There is no equivalent between security measures and the decommissioning of arms that we seek. In relation to security measures we act on the professional advice of the chief constable. We are determined not to relax our guard. The safety of the public is absolutely paramount. Decommissioning is essential because illegal arms, even if not used, are part of the threat. Substantive and verifiable decommissioning would have an impact on the overall level of threat alongside other important factors. I repeat that security measures are determined by the level of threat. We act on the professional advice of the chief constable.

I am sorry to intervene at this point. I just wanted to agree with and support what the Minister has said about the level of threat and the rumours that are in the newspapers today and were in the Irish Times yesterday. It is extremely important that security measures involving both police and the army are solely determined by the level of threat. After all, Irvinestown has reminded us once again, although we needed no reminding, that the threat does not come only from those who belong to the larger and better known paramilitary organisations but potentially, increasingly, from break-away movements of one kind or another. It is the threat from them, just as much as from any of the larger organisations, that has to be taken into account by the Secretary of State and his security advisers in deciding when to reduce any security measures that there are, including troop numbers and everything else. That has always been the policy, and I am delighted that the Minister has confirmed that it is still so.

I felt that I had made it abundantly clear in my opening words that the one target word in that sub-section was the word "review". I did not mention anything likely to be destructive of the Belfast agreement. I know that we used to be told in former times—last year and the year before—that the substitution of the word "may" for "shall" or vice versa would unravel the whole agreement, none of which I believed. That was the kind of theology. It was that word "review" to which I took exception and which I made clear I regarded as highly dangerous. I should have perhaps suggested the word "amendment" or "consultations". I did try to make it clear that on occasions when we have had these high-wire acts in the way of reviews, cameras and the law, ambushing everybody as they come in and out, putting their own slant and interpretation on what has been said, that was quite frankly destructive of any peaceful way forward. I derive some comfort from the fact that I am in line with the junior Minister in another place. I quoted the words to the Committee. I do hope that he will not be accused by certain Members of the Committee here of trying to destroy the Belfast agreement. In the light of the curious reaction I have had, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 3, leave out subsection (3).

I believe that we have yet to come to Clause 3. This is Amendment No. 3.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 2, line 6, leave out subsections (2) to (7) and insert—

("(2) Sections 16 to 19 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (relating to the election of the first minister and deputy first minister, the determination and filling of ministerial offices and the appointment of junior ministers) shall apply.".).

Once again, I regret to say that I cannot support the noble Lord's amendment. It seems to me that if suspension occurs (whatever the period of time it takes for democracy to be restored), it would be less than just after all the work, the negotiations, the effort and leadership of both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister—Mr Trimble and Mr Mallon, respectively—that they should not resume their posts when democracy is restored. If, as the noble Lord suggests, their mandate has run out, surely the democratic processes will take their own natural course within the Assembly and within the Province, and new elections will follow in the normal way. I believe that it is absolutely right that when democracy is restored after a suspension, those in post should remain there until the democratic processes of the system decide otherwise. As I say, we cannot support the amendment.

On Tuesday in another place my right honourable friend Mr Mandelson, set out the rationale behind the Bill. He made it clear that the intention was to suspend the institutions in order to create a temporary pause, a breathing space, in which a short review could take place, after which a restoration order could be made.

Fundamentally, the enabling power in this Bill will suspend only the operation of the institutions. The institutions themselves will remain intact. In particular, the Assembly will not be collapsed or dissolved. Similarly, members of the Executive and the First and Deputy First Ministers are not being permanently discharged. Their functions will simply be exercised, for a temporary period, by the Secretary of State. A restoration order will then return all of the institutions intact, to the point before suspension took place. Clause 3 has been drafted to allow a smooth, uncomplicated and swift return to devolution.

If Clause 3 were drafted in the way proposed by the noble Lord, in effect one would have to have new elections for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—and that would suggest that the suspension was intended to be a long-term proposition, which it is not. In addition, it might suggest some permanency that would be damaging to the process of building the trust and confidence which are necessary for the restoration of the institutions.

The vast majority here and in another place have expressed their disappointment at the need to present this Bill. These views are based on the fact that most people want to see the Good Friday agreement work. They want to see power successfully devolved to Northern Ireland. They do not want to see a return to direct rule. The Government are in total agreement with those views. That is why, instead of dissolving the institutions and repealing the Northern Ireland Act 1998, we are putting arrangements in place to allow for what we hope will be a short suspension. It would not be conducive to a swift and positive return to devolution to have to re-establish the Assembly from scratch after suspension. It would not help to create stability; it would have the opposite effect. I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's response. I can only hope that the obvious conflict between the 1998 Act and the present Bill will not, when the Assembly is eventually restored, cause the whole operation to end in chaos and tears yet again. I hope that the gentle warnings that I have given may at least enable some consideration to be given to the possibility that the experts may not be entirely right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 3, line 17, leave out ("(except one under Section 9(2))").

I am in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, has just said. Obviously, it is extremely important that the order which sets the suspension in motion should be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. Sadly, that is not how I read his amendment. It appears to mean that the Act would not come into force, and would not become available to the Secretary of State, unless there had been approved a draft of such an order by both Houses of Parliament. There would have to be a subsequent order and another pair of approvals in order to set the suspension in motion. I do not believe that is desirable. It would be unusual to require an affirmative resolution simply for the bringing into force of the Act. Secondly, it may delay permission being given for the actual suspension owing to the necessity of having two measures of approval, one for the Act itself and the other for the resolution. Therefore, while agreeing with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, I cannot agree to the amendment as I read it.

I cannot support the amendment. Last week the Secretary of State himself in another place had a timetable in mind. He seemed to suggest that, with everyone's co-operation, the Bill could complete all its stages in both Houses and receive Royal Assent at a given time, followed by commencement, in his view, almost automatically. That seemed to be what he had in mind. I believe that is desirable.

Through his amendment the noble Lord seeks to provide that the commencement order bringing this Act into effect should be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny and approval. Although the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, raised questions about its efficacy, I understand that he supports the principle. Although I understand the reasons for moving the amendment, I believe that it is inappropriate.

It is customary for the power to make a commencement order not to be subject to parliamentary approval. In giving its approval to this Bill the House will, with regret, I believe, be giving my right honourable friend in another place authority to suspend devolved government. He has made it clear that he will act on that authority by the end of this week if clear and credible progress has not been made on decommissioning, as the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, has said. That is the reality of the position. To be required to return to the House within days for further approval is neither sensible nor appropriate.

Members of the Committee may also wish to note, first, that the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee which considered these matters, has given the legislation a clean bill of health. Secondly, subsequent restoration and revocation orders under the Bill, should it become law, would require parliamentary approval. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

I accept the impeccable logic of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the assurances given by the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 4, line 11, at end insert ("within 24 hours of Royal Assent").

I have some sympathy with this amendment but, after considerable thought, I believe it is best to leave the Secretary of State with maximum flexibility as to when he operates the suspension, if indeed he has to. However, I reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, as regards the suspension being sooner rather than later if the deterioration continues, according to the press and one thing and another. We must not forget that the Ulster Unionist Party conference meets on Saturday. The First Minister, David Trimble, will be in serious trouble by then if we have not got either the product or the process has not been suspended.

Furthermore, the people attending that meeting will come from right across the Province. If they have not heard in due time of the suspension and arrive in the knowledge that it has not happened, there could be considerable difficulties in getting the decision that we want from them. I am being very practical and recommend to the Government that if suspension is seen to be necessary—I still hope that it will not—it is made in adequate time to be announced in Northern Ireland on the six o'clock news.

I appreciate that the noble Lord wishes to ensure that a prompt decision is made as to when suspension should take effect, particularly as it is such a major step. But as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has said, the effect of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to make a commencement order within such a short timescale thereby negating the flexibility of allowing an order to be made in the first place. In practice, this amendment to the Bill would not allow my right honourable friend in another place to take account of any developments that occur before the Bill receives Royal Assent or even just after that. I am sure that the Committee is aware of the rapid changes that can occur in the political process in Northern Ireland, particularly the propensity for developments at the eleventh hour. We must not assume, even at this late stage, that commencement will be necessary. Indeed, many of us hope that there will be enough progress so that suspension is no longer needed.

Equally, the Government must be able to react quickly to preserve the progress that has been made so far and to ensure good governance in Northern Ireland. Assurances have been given, both here and in another place, that those developments must occur by the end of the week or devolved government will be suspended.

Emphasising again that the amendment will require the Secretary of State to trigger suspension of the devolved institutions even if the political context did not warrant it, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for his qualified support of the amendment. I am grateful to him also for issuing a little reminder of certain crucial timetables and crucial meetings taking place in the early part of the weekend, which I was too timid to mention.

I understand the constitution and niceties of these matters. I hope that, at least, the amendment and what has been said in support of it will be taken on board by the Secretary of State—sensitive, as he always is, to the possibility of dangers and troubles further down the road. I am confident that we can leave the matter to his judgment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 8, line 5, after ("may") insert ("by order").

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation of his amendments. Whether or not intended, the effect of the amendments would be that the Secretary of State would have power under Section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to vary Assembly members' salaries; however, he would not have power to stop salaries altogether without making an order which would be subject to approval by Parliament. Furthermore, such an order would lapse after six months unless replaced by a further one.

The approach currently set out in the Bill is more appropriate. This transfers to my right honourable friend in another place the relevant functions currently exercised by the Assembly. He will have discretion to vary or stop salaries as appropriate. I am confident that he will discharge this responsibility carefully and with all due consideration. It would not significantly enhance the interests of either Assembly members, Members of this Parliament or your Lordships to introduce a further element into this process. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

I thank the noble and learned Lord for his assurances. In the light of those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 8, line 5, after ("salaries") insert ("or allowances").

The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, did not speak to Amendment No. 9 and I shall deal with that amendment after he has moved it.

The effect of Amendment No. 8 would be to allow the Secretary of State to determine allowances as well as salaries at zero. Paragraph 9(2) of the Schedule was included because the power transferred to the Secretary of State to determine salaries under Section 47 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is such that the Secretary of State would be able only to vary salaries, not to withdraw them altogether. While no decisions have yet been taken on those matters, it is right that the Secretary of State should be given full discretion.

The scope for the Secretary of State to determine the allowances payable to Assembly members is much greater and he already has discretion to withdraw all allowances under the present statutory provision in Section 48 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1998. Consequently, the amendment is unnecessary and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it. I should point out that Sections 47 and 48 of the Act deal with the payment of salaries and allowances to individuals. They do not deal with the payment of moneys to parties, which is to what I believe the noble Lord was referring when he mentioned "Short" money. I am not sure that either Clause 9(2) or Section 47 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1998 touch the issue he raised.

I agree that the Short money would not be in the terms of the Bill as printed, but under the 1998 Act that did not stop the Finance Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly from exploring, I understand, in company with its Scottish and Welsh counterparts, the possibility of making an application—I presume to the other end of the building—for access to the Short money. It was to avoid any embarrassment that I tabled the amendment. I shall therefore withdraw it and I shall not move the other amendment in my name to ensure that there is no distinction between members of the Assembly and Ministers in the Assembly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

My Lords, I apologise for the fact that inescapable duties prevented me from hearing the Second Reading debate. I realise that I must not now make a Second Reading speech, but I hope that a brief Third Reading speech may be permissible.

I have, of course, had the advantage of reading in Hansard yesterday's Second Reading debate here and that in another place. I do not see how the Secretary of State could possibly have avoided bringing forward the Bill in the light of such information as is in the public domain, any more than I see how, on the basis of such information, the Secretary of State can avoid bringing in the order implementing the suspension of the institutions forthwith.

I take issue with the Explanatory Notes, helpful though they are, because paragraph 3 states that,

"the Secretary of State also indicated that should future circumstances require it"—

referring to the Statement of 22nd November in another place

"the operation of the Assembly (and other institutions) could be suspended".

The Secretary of State did not say so. In the most robust language, he said that they would be suspended. It is worth bearing in mind the language that he used:

"However, if there is default, either in implementing, decommissioning, or indeed for that matter devolution, it is understood that the two Governments, British and Irish, will take the steps necessary to cease immediately the operation of the institutions—the Executive, the Assembly, the North-South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council, the Civic Forum and the north-south implementation bodies".

He continued,

"Nobody should doubt my resolve to ensure that no party profits from preventing progress in all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/99; col. 346.]

It is clear from a reading of yesterday's debate in your Lordships' House that none of your Lordships appeared in any doubt that circumstances require the suspending of the institutions because the republicans have defaulted on decommissioning. I want to make it clear that I agree—lest anyone in any quarter should suppose that I was reluctant to be counted on that matter at this critical time—because of the collapse of confidence in the Executive and in other institutions that the default has caused, at least among the Unionists in Northern Ireland, and, I suspect, probably more widely.

That collapse of confidence is not irrational. It derives from the fact that trust has to be at the centre of the operation of the institutions of devolution. Furthermore, a crucial expectation which Sinn Fein colluded in creating has been dashed. There is also a further reason. Genuine deliberation and, more especially, genuine compromise, are inhibited if one party refuses to give up its arsenal. Either a compromise will have been extorted by threat of force, or it will have been withheld for fear of such an accusation. Yet surely in Northern Ireland, of all places, the art of judicious compromise needs to be encouraged.

There will be time in due course to review recent history and the Government's handling of those extremely difficult matters with the great benefit of hindsight. At this point, I do not feel disposed to criticise Her Majesty's Government for having travelled many painful extra miles—with one exception which I attacked at the time and to which it is not now necessary to allude. In my own time, I travelled some painful extra miles knowing full well the obloquy that they would attract. The consequence of the Government's extra miles at the very least has surely been this: that Sinn Fein/IRA defaulters are today in the unprecedented position of being universally seen for what they are, at least at present—that is, obstructers of the very process which they claim to support, and blackmailing obstructers at that.

Among their resulting multifarious critics are those who have been driven to denounce even John Hume for "inappropriate" remarks—by which they mean uncongenial remarks—calling for a start to decommissioning by them. The Secretary of State rightly described that in another place as "arrogant". I am afraid that he also described it as "lordly", which your Lordships would not recognise. For that action on the part of Sinn Fein to be noted by all the world is surely not a negligible development; nor is its significance likely to be lost on Sinn Fein/IRA. They are on their own, and, I suggest, for the first time.

I agree with the remarks made in the same vein yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Eames, and others about the need to keep doors open, not to slam them. I agree also with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, in this debate about the availability of other modes of discourse and discussion. There are ways of talking other than in the Executive and the Assembly. Those ways must continue to be taken. We should always travel in hope. But for the immediate future, the Bill must surely be passed and the implementing order made—not least because, otherwise, Northern Ireland will at once lose the leadership of two politicians in particular without whose courage and vision the huge progress noted by noble Lords in yesterday's debate would not have been made.

My Lords, I indicated to the Government that I wanted to say a few words at this stage. I do not intend to go into any great detail. I have had the experience of the "treble"—of seeing three governments in Northern Ireland abolished. In 1972, I saw the wiping out of the Stormont parliament, which had been created in 1920. In 1974, I was there when the Sunningdale executive was wiped out. I then saw the abolition of the convention a few years later. Now, I am witnessing the current events.

All noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have expressed a great deal of regret. No one in this House seeks with any enthusiasm the passage of this legislation. I do so very reluctantly. But some things should be pointed out. A great deal of criticism has rightly been levelled at Sinn Fein/IRA and their refusal to decommission their arms. But when the review takes place—and I hope that it will be successful—as much consideration and pressure should be applied to the UFF, the UVF and the other loyalist so-called paramilitaries who also have a large number of lethal arms at their disposal.

During the suspension, we are asking the IRA to decommission. The IRA are the Irish Republican Army. Without arms, they are nothing. The Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) is nothing without its murderous weapons. The only reason that the LVF and the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) have any legitimacy in their own minds is that they have lethal arms at their disposal by which they threaten to murder those who disagree with them. So when the review takes place, the same pressure should be applied to all those organisations. If the IRA does decommission, then there will be no need: it will be voting itself out of existence. What is an army without arms? So the IRA must face the consequences—as we must. If it hands in its arms, as I passionately advise it to do, there will be no need for an Irish Republican Army. The same applies to the UVF and the other so-called "loyalist" organisations.

I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, will have made many friends among Northern Ireland Assembly members by querying their salaries. I know how sensitive the matter can be, and has been every time there has been an abolition order.

I should like to ask an important question. During the suspension, when no meetings will be allowed at Stormont—there will be no committees—will members of the legislative assembly be able to attend as individuals? They have offices there, with their computers, word processors and various writing facilities. Will they be able to use the facilities in the building? We all know the symbolism of the Stormont building. In my mind I have a clear picture of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness being held outside the building before they were elected as MLAs. I can readily foresee that the symbolism of the building will be used by MLAs of different political persuasions to put forward their particular point of view.

An editorial in the Irish Times fully expresses my wish and my sentiments at this time. It was written last year, not last week. The final paragraph states:

"The core of the decommissioning issue is no different today from what it was six months ago. No democratic system can function while some participants reserve the right indefinitely to fall back upon violence and maintain an armed force to do so. The IRA and Sinn Féin do not appear to accept this and believe they can force those who are fully-committed democrats to bend to their will".

That last sentence is of great import to everyone at this time.

"It would be unthinkable that the Belfast Agreement, with all it represents, should founder. But that would be a lesser price to pay than embracing the corruption which would be implicit in a surrender to such demands".

That speaks for the vast majority of people in the island of Ireland.

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. We all listen carefully to what he has to say. How true his words were about the critical importance of decommissioning. For it is arms that confer legitimacy on terrorists on either side of the political divide, whether the possession of the pike in the thatch in the 18th century or the Armalite in the loft in the 21st century. The noble Lord's remarks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, should be listened to with great care.

I must apologise as I, too, was unable to be present for the Second Reading debate. The same kind of inescapable duties kept me away from this House. I shall not detain your Lordships long in this debate, except to say that I hope that we shall indeed have good fortune in the next few days. If we do not, I hope that there will be a period of reflection which may lead to good fortune and the restoration of the arrangements which many in this House wish to see.

I urge upon Her Majesty's Government that, during that period of reflection, they look and think hard about whatever Plan B it may be necessary to bring back to this House and to another place, perhaps in a few months' time. I believe that it will very soon become clear that such a plan may be necessary. I look for reassurances from the Minister that the Government are prepared to take into account the sad possibility that such a Plan B may be necessary. I agree entirely with my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden that we must travel with hope, but this House, as well as the Government, must also travel with realism.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for his observations about keeping doors open and other modes of talking. It is nice to have confirmation of what I sought to say both yesterday and today from someone who bore principal responsibility for these matters for a number of years.

This situation places a considerable responsibility on organisations such as the British-Irish Association, the Irish Association, Queen's University, Corrymeela Community and others, who did a great deal over many years to keep some kind of political dialogue going, to do the same if, as looks likely, the institutions find themselves in a state of suspension.

My Lords, I refer very briefly to the routine extension of an order providing an arms amnesty to be debated by another place on Monday. In my view, there would be misunderstanding if that debate were regarded as in any way linked to our exchanges this afternoon.

My Lords, we have had a long debate on this important issue. We must not lose sight of the fact that a great deal was achieved under the Good Friday agreement. The issue of decommissioning is one area in which there has been no progress at all. The people of Northern Ireland have gained much from the agreement, and we should audit what has been achieved: an inclusive power-sharing government; cross-border implementation bodies; a North-South Ministerial Council; a British-Irish Council; very importantly, the only human rights commission within these islands; the opportunity to have a police service that has the trust and respect of all; and a significant reduction in the number of troops on the streets. Substantial moves have been made towards the establishment of a normal society.

The Assembly had a long—far too long—period of gestation. In its brief period of effective operation it has proved that it can work well for all the people of Northern Ireland, and we have much to lose if it collapses altogether. Therefore, we believe that immediately all parties in Northern Ireland must come together to resolve the situation. The Bill allows the parties some breathing space to ensure that that task can be carried out quickly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. As I said yesterday, it takes time to build up an institution; it takes a matter of hours to finish it. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, gave testimony to the number of institutions that he had seen come and go. It is vitally important that we do not allow the suspension to go on for too long and that we restore full power to the Assembly as speedily as possible.

My Lords, this debate illustrates that your Lordships' House is at one in supporting the Bill, with some provisos. Warnings have been given to Her Majesty's Government. However, we are all still hopeful that miracles will happen and that suspension will not be necessary. I restate the stance of my party. We believe in the Belfast agreement and in the need for the IRA to disarm. We also believe that everything humanly possible must be done to keep the Executive together. We hope that Her Majesty's Government will have the courage, skill, luck and good fortune to do that which we all know is necessary.

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their co-operation in allowing all stages of the Bill to take place in this House in the course of two days. In particular, I thank the Front Benches of the two parties opposite. The House is practically united in the views expressed over the past two days. We face a very serious situation in Northern Ireland this week. The Bill before the House is one that none of us would have chosen to consider, let alone bring into effect, but there is a serious risk that cross-community confidence in the institutions will diminish to the point where those institutions are in danger of collapse. The Government cannot stand idly by and watch; they must take urgent action to ensure that they have the necessary powers so that the continuing good governance of Northern Ireland is safeguarded.

All in this House want the agreement to succeed and every aspect of it to be implemented in full. We want to see devolution and decommissioning—both are voluntary aspects of the agreement but both are essential—take place. We want to see substantive progress being made on decommissioning immediately. If that progress does not materialise the Government recognise the need to take action to safeguard the institutions. The Bill provides a breathing space for the parties to come together to review the current situation and resolve the very real problems which exist. It is pause or bust. That is potentially the only choice which lies before us. If that situation is reached I do not believe that it is a choice at all. We cannot allow the institutions to perish; there is too much at stake. A pause will at least preserve the institutions and enable us to focus all our efforts on finding a way forward. All of us want to see the Good Friday agreement succeed: there will never be a better agreement. It is for that reason that the House supports the Bill.

I conclude briefly by referring to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead. Next week a draft order under the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act is to come before this House and another place. The effect of it is to extend the amnesty period during which decommissioning can take place under the Act until 23rd May 2000. The draft order will be subject to full and open debate here and in another place. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt that debate, save to say that the order is essential in order that decommissioning can take place within the time-frame set out in the Good Friday agreement. That is what we all want to see.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)

Not moved.

The Committee has previously divided on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has now decided not to move her Motion. Before we turn to the new amendments to be moved by the noble Baroness, perhaps she will deal with one matter. I note from the Official Report that the noble Baroness who called Tuesday night's Division in the first place did not see fit to vote herself. Perhaps she can tell the Committee why.

It is not for me to account for my actions on that evening. I called the Division and, to the embarrassment of the Government, they did not even have the payroll vote in the Chamber to support the clause. The truth is that I sat here so bemused by what took place on the other side that I forgot to vote.

moved Amendment No. 79A:

After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—

Let there be no mistake about this. I was saying that the previous government totally failed to ensure that there was a proper system in existence, when there was a breakdown in the performance that we expect from colleges of further education, with respect both to the standards of educational provision being provided and to financial probity. I was referring to the previous government's total failure to create a system in which those problems could be dealt with. I was in no way suggesting that the entire further education system was performing inadequately or suffering from a failure to achieve the kinds of standards that we expect. I was suggesting that there were a number of colleges—and I will name them a little later during the debate—where sleaze, incompetence and financial mismanagement as well as poor educational standards were allowed to flourish because of the previous government's failure to institute a proper system to ensure that such things did not happen.

The words used by the noble Baroness were "sleaze" and "mismanagement". I have gone back to the statute to look at this, and in fact the powers to deal with such situations were there and still are there. The people who did not take action were those on the Further Education Funding Council. They had the powers to intervene; they had the knowledge of what was going on and in fact they did not use the powers as early as they might have used them, or indeed in the way that they should have used them. Certainly the colleges themselves were very concerned at the way in which the noble Baroness referred to the further education sector at that time.

I have some sympathy with them, but they believe that the powers were there and could have been used by the Further Education Funding Council. However, those powers were not used by the council. Several speakers from the Liberal Democrat Benches also spoke of the powers that could have been used. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness will know that when I spoke on the evening in question I spoke of intervention, and especially of intervention at a point when it could either prevent trouble or prevent trouble getting worse in any college. That is important, and the noble Baroness will know that I have no objection whatsoever to the system that she described, of additional governors who could be put in place to help a college and either prevent difficulties arising or, if the intervention has come rather late, to prevent the situation getting worse. They could help a college in such a situation to get back on track.

However, the powers in the Bill are open-ended. There is no trigger mechanism for them and there are no qualifying clauses which would dictate how the powers are to be used. There is no way in which the colleges could know what processes could be put in place if these powers were to be triggered. Therefore it is important that this power which, as I say, is open-ended at this moment, should be qualified in some way. The noble Baroness will notice that I have put forward a suggested clause which would follow Clause 11 which says that,

"The Council may only exercise the power conferred by section 11 in a case where it has reasonable cause to believe that the governing body of the institution is managing the affairs of the institution or discharging any duty imposed on them by or for the purposes of the Education Acts or this Act in a way which is having, or is likely to have"—

which is what the noble Baroness was wanting the other evening—

"an adverse effect on—

(a) the quality of education or training provided by the institution; or

(b) the proper use of public funds under the administration of the institution".

These are what the noble Baroness said were the conditions under which these powers would be used. I think it would be helpful to the colleges to have that on the face of the Bill, knowing the situation in which they would be used.

Another matter which is greatly troubling the colleges is that there have been discussions with the department for some time now regarding the limited liability of governors. They are in a very vulnerable position in this sort of situation, especially those governors who do act reasonably and in good faith. We all know that acting reasonably and in good faith is normally a defence. However, it is very important that in some way the Government are able to clarify the position and liability of governors. I have in fact put down an amendment today, which will be seen on the Marshalled List on Monday, that will attempt to help this situation.

The important thing is that if there is to be intervention in the colleges, it should not be subjective. It should be on the basis of having concerns either about the standards of education in a college or the administration of the college and the effective use of resources. These resources are, as the noble Baroness rightly said the other evening, public funds and the protection of public funds is important. I believe that this qualifying clause would help. If the Government are minded not to include the suggested clause, one really has to join the colleges and wonder what it is that the Government are planning in terms of the use of these powers.

Perhaps I might just say before the noble Baroness rises to speak that I am not speaking to Amendment No. 168A. I shall leave that amendment to my noble friend Lord Roberts when he comes to deal with the Welsh clauses. I beg to move.

I believe that there is real concern about the open-ended nature of the powers given to the LSC in Clause 11. It was for that reason that we from these Benches put forward Amendment No. 79, which was debated the other evening. Since that time I have reread in Hansard our debate, and have thought carefully about the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness the Minister.

As I said on Tuesday night, we were all disappointed at the attitude of the Government on this issue. The Minister made it clear that the power to appoint governors would be used only in the last resort when things are going badly wrong. It was in that spirit that Amendment No. 79 was put forward: that the powers granted under Section 27 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 were sufficient to cover the position. We objected that using these powers would be too cumbersome and would prevent action at an early stage when things were beginning to go wrong, arguing that the L SC should not operate by a ministerial fiat but should have powers of its own.

This new amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would seemingly overcome this obstacle, in the sense that it would give the Learning and Skills Council the power to intervene in its own right in these exceptional circumstances. From these Benches we have some reservations about the powers granted to the council, even under this amendment. For that reason, although we would support it in spirit, we are inclined to prefer to think further on it and perhaps return to the issue at Report stage.

I rise for the first time in this House to take part in the discussion of a clause. In doing so I now realise how much more comfortable it was to sit with the files, as an official, as I did 30 years ago, to write notes for the Minister, rather than to stand up and without the benefit of the files try to make a contribution.

For some years I was the chairman of a body called the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Baker, appointed me to that office. It may be that an experience I had on one occasion, imperfect though my memory may be, will be of some relevance. It made me wonder, with respect, whether the very understandable concern to introduce safeguards, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, might circumscribe the ability of the council to respond to a situation, because it is very difficult to anticipate in a safeguarding clause the kinds of circumstances which may arise.

The circumstance which I imperfectly remember was that of a college of higher education. It got into financial difficulties and then received an adverse report on its academic standards. A very real crisis had developed. The governing body responded by proposing, in effect, the closure of the college and the transfer of all the students to another institution. When the case came before the funding council, it seemed to us, first, that the procedures adopted by the college had been imperfect and, secondly, that the decision it had reached was not in the best interests of the students.

The governing body had taken its decision in good conscience, but we thought the decision mistaken. The council indicated that it opposed the decision and there could have been a very difficult impasse. Happily, the situation was resolved by the honourable resignation of the chairman and one or two other members. I was then able to use my good offices to suggest certain other appointments. So the problem was resolved in a way preferable to what had been originally intended and in the best interests of the students.

If there had been an impasse, I am not sure, without powers to bring in new people and thus unlock minds, that the matter could have been solved satisfactorily. Any powers of the kind proposed by the Government should be used sparingly and only after every attempt has been made to resolve matters by agreement and negotiation. However, sometimes that is not possible. I believe that it is in the interests of students for the council to be able to make two appointments and then be accountable for the action that it has taken.

I hope the Committee will forgive me if I respond to this amendment at some length. I believe that we are discussing an important matter. We are agreed that the LSC should have the power to intervene. There is nothing between us on that. I return to the points I made when debating amendments to Clause 11 about the need to intervene early. I understand that the concerns of the noble Baroness are about the actual circumstances in which the powers may be used. She referred to the need for triggers on the face of the Bill for determining when the power should be exercised. She has now produced an amendment which would set out the circumstances in which the LSC could exercise the power. But again I am afraid she has missed the point. We must look back at the kind of circumstances which gave rise to the need for this power in the first place.

In our earlier debate I mentioned Halton College. The report published by the Comptroller and Auditor General with the title, Investigations of alleged irregularities at Halton College, lists 14 allegations that were received and investigated by the Further Education and Funding Council. Some were found not to be substantiated. Some were found to be partly substantiated. Some were found to be fully substantiated. In the PAC's 37th report, published after its consideration of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, the committee drew out some of the devastating consequences of what went wrong. I should like to quote from the PAC's first conclusion:

"It is highly unsatisfactory that Halton College overclaimed almost £14 million, and that to a large extent these overclaims evaded financial controls in place at the college and in the Funding Council. One immediate impact of the need to repay this money is that 114 people will lose their jobs, and this will cost the taxpayer £1.8 million".

The committee went on to give details of a range of other serious concerns about what had happened. As many noble Lords will know, this committee is not known for issuing plaudits, but in this case I think it is worth noting two of the committee's comments. First, in respect of the action taken by the FEFC, the committee said:

"We welcome the steps taken by the Funding Council and the college to improve governance, internal control, management and audit arrangements at Halton College".

Incidentally, I think that what the noble Baroness said, arising, she says, from discussions she has had with the AoC about the funding council, is grossly unfair. I would wish to place on record my appreciation of the efforts that the FEFC has put into tackling problems at colleges. I wish to note also that the provisions in Clause 11 reflect points made to me by its chairman, my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham and its chief executive, Professor David Melville. They are the practitioners in the front line and it is only right that the form of that clause is informed by their unfortunately all too considerable experience of dealing with problems in certain colleges.

Secondly, on the measures that we introduced to improve the accountability framework for further education colleges, the committee had this to say:

"We strongly support the positive response of the Department to the problems uncovered at Halton and Bilston Community College on which the Funding Council has recently published a highly critical report".

The committee referred to Bilston College and I should like to mention a number of points about it as well. The FEFC commissioned an inquiry into the future of this college which was published in March last year. It was headed by Terry Melia, the former chief inspector of the council. The college had been the subject of the most critical inspection report on a further education college ever published by the council up to that time. The inspection report highlighted deficiencies in both the governance and the management of the college. It found serious weaknesses in many curriculum areas and cross-college services that impact directly on students.

I thank the Minister for giving way. Can she tell the Committee what powers the FEFC lacked for picking up these points earlier and for taking action even earlier than it did?

I shall come to that later in my response to the noble Baroness's amendments. I shall return to the particular case of Bilston Community College. The college's financial position was "parlous". Terry Melia's report found that the management and financial systems of the college were unreliable. Indeed, his inquiry team could not with any certainty be sure of the financial position of the college. The report noted that the corporation had not been conducting its business in accordance with its instrument and articles of government. It had not fulfilled its responsibilities under its financial memorandum with the funding council. College budgets did not provide a sound basis for the college's continuing solvency. Financial planning and monitoring had been imprudent. There was no systematic management of the college's provision. There was no coherent management of student support. I am afraid I could go on at some length.

The sad conclusion reached by the inquiry team was:

"We see no future for the college as an independent corporation".

Following the normal statutory processes, it was my task to consider the proposal made by the council to the Secretary of State to close the college. Regrettably, I saw no option but to agree to this last summer.

The reason why I have illustrated these issues at some length is not to restate the case for having these provisions in the Bill. We have already agreed that and there is common ground between us. Rather, it is the very wide-ranging nature of the issues that the FEFC at present, and the LSC in future, may have to tackle. I can assure the noble Baroness that since we last debated these issues we have thought long and hard about whether we could go some way towards meeting her concerns. But as soon as we begin to look at the realities on the ground—and I have only illustrated two of a number of cases in which I have had personal involvement—it immediately becomes evident that as soon as we start classifying or prescribing circumstances and situations or conditions to be met, we run into problems. I remain extremely unhappy that we should impose restrictions of this kind on the face of the Bill.

The issue is this. When we start limiting the power and ruling certain things in, we automatically rule everything else out. As I have tried to indicate through the examples that I have given, the kind of problems that have been encountered cannot always be readily categorised and pigeonholed. The LSC must be able to act flexibly and responsively if concerns arise at a college.

I turn now to the existing power. The existing power for the FEFCE to nominate two additional members to governing bodies was provided without constraints by the previous government in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. I must repeat that if we did not include anything in this Bill, the LSC could be given a power to nominate additional governors in the same way as the funding councils do now, and it would be without constraint. However, the power is limited to nomination, not appointment, leaving the LSC open to the possibility that it could be frustrated by delaying tactics. This provision, which is designed to allow swifter intervention, would avoid that kind of delay and make the operation of the power more effective. We are making effective the use of an existing power upon which the previous government saw no case for including constraints. Therefore, I find it particularly surprising that the noble Baroness, who was a member of that government, now wants to impose such constraints on the LSC.

If the noble Baroness's amendment is accepted, it could prove less effective than the existing provision under which the FEFC has power to nominate two people for membership of a governing body. That power of nomination is not limited in any way by the factors which are identified in this amendment. Therefore, the noble Baroness has, I am afraid, committed herself to an amendment which, in practice, will make it more difficult for the LSC to make an early intervention. At the same time, she has gone on record as saying that there is a case for early intervention and that it is right that additional governors should be appointed. I do not feel that the noble Baroness can have it both ways.

Given the ever-present threat of judicial review, there can he little doubt that the noble Baroness's amendment will act as a disincentive to early action by the LSC. I really do not understand why the noble Baroness has persisted with the matter when she has confirmed her agreement to the principles involved. I am grateful for that agreement.

Her amendment introduces a new condition before the triggers. The councils must have "reasonable cause to believe". Of course, the councils must act reasonably, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has already said. They are public bodies and we require no less. Therefore, that is quite unnecessary.

However, I shell return to that particular point concerning reasonableness a little later as I should also like to comment on a separate point, relevant to this debate, that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, when she spoke to her amendment to Clause 11. I take this opportunity to address that matter more fully. She was concerned that this power,

"seems an unreasonable interference with the autonomy of individual colleges".—[Official Report, 8/2/00; col 647.]

I am afraid that I believe that to be overstating the case. We intend to respect the autonomy of FE colleges. We are not proposing an unlimited power of appointment, which, I agree, would undermine autonomy, but simply a maximum of two additional governors. For example, all further education corporation governing bodies have a minimum of 12 governors before any additional appointments are made. Therefore, the LSC appointments would always be in a minority. But the LSC must have a seat at the table so that its voice can be heard and listened to when things go wrong.

As for the noble Baroness's concern that Clause 11 gives the LSC carte blanche to act unreasonably, that is a misguided concern. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said, such a power would be used sparingly. No one has suggested that the FEFC is currently abusing its power to nominate members of governing bodies, and I have never heard the AoC even suggest that. Clause 11 merely expedites the process whereby the LSC gains representation on the governing body. In the unlikely event that the LSC proposed to act wholly unreasonably and appoint, governors for absolutely no good reason, not only would the ordinary process of judicial review be available, but the Secretary of State would be able to give a binding direction to the LSC under Clause 25, which we shall come to later. To the extent that Clause 25 does not already make that absolutely clear, we propose to bring forward an amendment in due course to put the matter beyond doubt.

The powers would be along the lines of similar powers that already exist in respect of the current FE funding councils. If a college considered that it was being treated improperly, the funding councils would enable it to ask for intervention by the Secretary of State. It would include as a matter of course the powers under Clause 11.

I must repeat that the Government cannot accept these amendments, for the reasons that I have given. However, I hope that the amendment that I propose will go part of the way to meeting the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. That will put directly on to the face of the Bill a way for a college—or, indeed, anyone—to approach the Secretary of State if it considers that the LSC is acting unreasonably. It would also address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will withdraw her amendments. However, if she decides to divide the House, I hope that on this occasion she will not forget to vote.

Before the Minister responds, I thank her for explaining the Government's position so fully. I believe that, in spite of the slightly adversarial start to today's proceedings, we are not very far apart on this matter. I believe that we share the concerns expressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, of course, speaks for herself, but she has said, and I echo, that we understand and share the intentions of the Government.

On the other hand, I hope that the Minister recognises that the concerns which the noble Baroness's amendment seeks to address are shared not only by our Benches but by the FE sector generally. I am pleased that apparently she has recognised that point sufficiently to want to bring back an amendment at Report stage. Perhaps I may ask that we have early sight of that, when possible. I am sure that we can return to the matter at that stage.

I believe it is important that the Government recognise that, while their objective is shared, I am sure, by all, there is great concern, not only in this Chamber but outside, too, about the apparently open-ended nature of Clause 11. It may be that the amendment she intends to table will help to resolve some of that concern. We shall await it with interest.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for a full and comprehensive answer. I echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that there is a great deal of agreement about the principle and about the policy intention behind this issue.

I am sorry that the noble Baroness believes that my amendment is narrowly drawn. It covers absolutely every aspect of a college: the quality of the education and training provided—that is, its whole rationale for being—and the whole of the management. It states,

"where it has reasonable cause to believe that the governing body of the institution is managing the affairs of the institution or discharging any duty imposed on them by … the … Acts".

In other words, it covers every aspect of the college. The amendment refers to "Education Acts"; that is, those that have been passed and this Act, in particular, which is about to be passed and which, as I say, is likely to have an adverse effect on the quality of education or the management of the college and/or the use of public funds. There is nothing narrow about that. It includes all the activities of the college.

I turn to the particular examples given by the noble Baroness. A number of us are still bemused that the FEFC, which continued to fund those colleges—and that was not the only example; there were one or two others—continued to fund them in the full knowledge of what was happening. The only eyes and ears for any Secretary of State past or present—in this situation are the inspectorates and/or the FEFC. It seems to me extraordinary that such a parlous situation was allowed to develop at that college and that the report to which the noble Baroness referred was the first manifestation of what was going on there. Therefore the appointment of two governors was extremely late in the day. I absolutely agree with the point made by the noble Baroness that early intervention would have been much more appropriate. An early exposé of what was going on at that college would have helped a great number of people, not least the students and the people in the local community.

It is not a narrowly drawn amendment. The noble Baroness has talked about strengthening the powers. I still believe that it is important for the colleges to know that any additional governors are nominated and/or appointed because of a reasonable view that there is something wrong. That is precisely what my amendment provides.

I spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, before coming into the Chamber today. I know that Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches wish to give more thought to this matter because there are concerns about the use of a power.

What needs to be said and put on the record is that for every college that went wrong, many more colleges had no problems at all and served their local communities and students extremely well. They have enjoyed and made the most effective use of their autonomy. Therefore, it is important to balance the autonomy of the governing body and the running of an institution with taking sensible precautionary action where that becomes necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, gave us some examples. Throughout what he was saying, I was thinking to myself that it was much too late in the situation which the noble Lord described. One would want to appoint the governors at the point at which the signs were picked up, either through auditing and/or inspection or by the funding council, which in future will be the skills council, that something is going seriously wrong. That would be on the basis of having some suspicion that problems were beginning and things were beginning to go awry. Intervention would then be wholly justified.

That is linked to another point, to which I shall return on a later amendment; namely, governors' liability. It is extremely important that, from time to time, governors see these matters for themselves. Some people operate in some institutions in such a way that the governors are not aware that something is going wrong until it is too late.

But I return to my original point. It is very odd that the FEFC waited so long to expose the problems in that particular college. I shall withdraw the amendment. I hope that discussions can continue and that we can reach an accommodation before the next stage of the Bill.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that she will withdraw her amendment. Just before she sits down, I want to make two or three small points.

First, I too want it on the record, as I think I said earlier this afternoon, that the vast majority of colleges do a very good job. But unfortunately, a small minority has not done so and it has been able to get away with that partly because the structures were not in place which allow the FEFC to intervene as quickly as it needs to.

It is precisely because of the autonomy of those colleges which the noble Baroness wants to see that the FEFC's position must be one whereby it abides by the law and takes care in how it operates. It must also collect the evidence before it can intervene. But once that evidence is collected, it must be untrammelled in its ability to do so.

The primary power existed under the previous government's 1992 Act but, unfortunately, an order had never been brought forward until this Government did so in October last year, making it possible for the FEFC to nominate up to two additional governors. We are now taking that one step further and allowing it to make that appointment.

Is the noble Baroness saying that the FEFC could continue to fund for specific purposes, knowing that the money and resources given to those colleges was being abused and misused and could continue without any power whatever to do anything about it?

Unfortunately, most of the continuing funding of those colleges went on under the government of whom the noble Baroness was a member. As soon as this Government came into power, they immediately took action through the FEFC to sort out the appalling mess which had existed as a result of the failure of the previous government to have a proper structure in place.

That was not my question. Where was the lack of power which would have prevented the FEFC from saying to a college, "You are not receiving any more money until resources are being properly used"? The FEFC had power to hold moneys back. No Secretary of State can know what is going on unless he is told what is going on. Where was the lack of power? Under what power did the FEFC continue to fund a college knowing that things were going so badly wrong?

The issue at stake here is that the governing bodies of further education colleges have very considerable autonomy with respect to spending the money which has been allocated to them. There may be subsequent changes to the allocations but a large college already has substantial resources. A couple of those colleges got into a deficit position. At that stage, the FEFC was able to intervene.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 80:

Page 6, line 18, at end insert—

("( ) The Council shall carry out research into specific groups of learners and the learning process as relevant to such groups.").

I wish to speak to Amendment No. 92, which is grouped with this amendment. Also, I support the noble Lord, Lord Adeington.

I wish to qualify the word "adequate" which is difficult fully to understand in legislation. I know that those concerned with people with learning difficulties believe that whatever is provided should be "sufficient" and it certainly should be "appropriate" to the particular needs of the individual. Therefore, the words "sufficient and appropriate" would be more specific, understandable and reassuring for those who are concerned about meeting the relevant needs of people with learning difficulties.

Perhaps I may refer the noble Baroness to our debate on Tuesday 8th February at cols. 578 and 581, when I queried whether the provision provided by social services would remain adequate for mentally handicapped young people to complement the education supported by the new LSC. Understandably, the Minister said she could not speak from the Dispatch Box for social services, but she said that the Government were doing their best to improve social services in this area. I am sure that we all accept that and are very grateful for it.

Even if the noble Baroness cannot make commitments for other departments, which I am sure we all accept, the collaboration between government departments is something I would like to pursue in this area because education on its own, however excellent (certainly for all children with learning difficulties and especially for those with severe learning difficulties) cannot succeed unless social services, and indeed the Department of Health, is collaborating fully. I mention health because we must not forget that these children often have quite severe health problems as well.

I hope I may be pushing at an open door with the Government, because I am aware that for mentally handicapped adults—adults with learning difficulties—the Government are wisely encouraging more collaboration between health, social services and local authorities. I feel sure that the Government deserve congratulation on that initiative. Indeed, I have suggested to the Minister in another place that for mentally handicapped adults the Home Office should also be invited to join the loop because a disturbingly high proportion of the prison population is now mentally disordered—I believe the figure given is some 40 per cent. A growing number of those people may have learning disabilities.

Better collaboration between health and social services in areas indicated by the Home Office might prevent some of these people going to prison, which is obviously damaging for them—they are already unfortunate—and it is also, of course, very expensive. One fears that some prisoners will be in the age group covered by this clause—up to age 25.

And so, for the young people concerned it seems to me that we cannot provide even "adequate" education, let alone "sufficient and appropriate" education or training, as proposed by my noble friend's amendment, unless there is full collaboration between the noble Baroness's department, social services and health. I submit, for what it is worth, that it might also be worth consulting the Home Office for the reason I have given.

Finally, I think it would be worth having a representative of the Treasury present in this proposed inter-governmental collaboration because I am sure that the Government want to look at education which is effective, care-effective and cost-effective. I support the amendment.

In addressing the amendments in this group I shall first speak to Amendment No. 80 and to Amendment No. 169, the parallel amendment for Wales.

Clause 12(1) and subsection Clause 39(1) empower the LSC and the CETW to carry out research relevant to any of their functions. Clearly, those functions include provision for all learners, including people with learning difficulties and disabilities. Identifying and meeting the learning needs of those groups will be part of the core business of the councils.

The LSC and the CETW will certainly therefore have all the powers that they require to carry out research into the needs of specific groups of learners, including those with disabilities and learning difficulties, and into how the learning process is and should be serving them best.

The FEFCs, working with organisations such as FEDA, have a good track record of research in this area and I certainly expect the LSC to maintain that level of priority. Indeed, further research is an important part of the consideration of plans for our future provision for disabled people which the LSC will be under a statutory duty to compile.

While research into the needs of such key groups will be an important part of the work of the LSC and the CETW, I see no need to give them statutory duties to that effect. Therefore, with the assurances that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendments.

With regard to Amendment No. 92, the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 recognised the importance of specialist provision and boarding accommodation as part of the learning opportunities available for people with learning difficulties. We have continued that approach and the good practice that currently exists in this Bill.

Our intention is that in discharging its duties in Clause 2 and 3, the LSC must give consideration to whether or not it can provide an adequate standard of education for a person with learning difficulties. Where it cannot, it must consider provision of boarding accommodation if a person is under 25, and may do so where a person is over 25. That is what Clause 13 means. Our use of the term "adequate" has a meaning similar to that at Clause 2(2)(b)—page 2 at line 8 where it alludes to the "quality" of provision adequate to meet the needs of a young person, and reflects the priority that we have given to meeting young peoples' needs.

It is not necessary to amend the clause by inserting the word "appropriate" because, in effect, it is already there. The council's duties at Clauses 2 and 3 stipulate that its provision must be,

"suitable to the requirements of persons".

In short, it must be "appropriate" in the sense that the noble Baroness intends.

Turning to what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, said, I entirely accept that in this area there is a need for collaboration across departments, just as there is a need for collaboration across departments in the setting up of the ConneXion service, where young people in various kinds of difficulties may require the services not just of my department but also of the Department of Health, which, of course, is responsible for social services, and in some cases the Home Office, where the young person has got into trouble with the law. As for the Treasury, that department always makes its presence known in departmental discussions of this kind. I take the point that the noble Lord makes. We are trying to have more effective joined-up government thinking in this and other areas.

I thank the Minister for that reply. If I heard her correctly, I believe her reply was that the Government intend to do that anyway so there is no need for a specific duty to be placed on the face of the Bill. That is roughly what I understood her to say. However, we must bear in mind that so far we have never had enough information to allow people to find the right kind of help or the right processes are not available to them. That point lies behind the amendment. I do not know whether we shall ever achieve that. We can certainly do better and we can stop wasting time.

I said that this is a "may" or "shall" argument, although I do not believe that we should delay the Committee on this matter. However, I give notice that I shall return to the issue, on this Bill and others, because unless we get it clear and unless we know where to start looking people will continue to chase around and miss years in their education because they cannot find out what is going on.

I thank the Minister for her description of "adequate", which makes one consider the bear minimum as opposed to what is right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 81:

Page 6, line 26, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").

I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 86 and 170. My reasons for tabling these amendments are close to the reasons stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. But this is not the time or place to make a long speech about the benefits of openness and freedom of information.

The purpose of my amendment is to ask the Government to continue collecting the data which is at present collected by the Further Education Funding Council. It collects data, including staffing information on FE colleges and other information, which is not published regularly but which is valuable both to unions and local authorities. My amendments ask the Government to ensure that that information continues to be collected and is published regularly. It is the regular publication of the data which is helpful to those trying to plan staffing and other aspects of FE education.

First, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on Amendment No. 81. I see the Minister shaking his head. I have no doubt the previous government got it wrong as well. I pledge the noble Baroness our support at least if she feels the need to divide the Committee on this important issue. It may be that this will be the most significant victory that she scores in these Committee proceedings.

I support the intention behind the other amendments, which is to obtain from the Government what I hope we are about to hear; namely, an assurance that this information will continue to he collected and published. Whether or not it belongs on the face of the Bill I have some doubts, but I welcome an assurance from the Minister that, if it is thought appropriate, the council will be asked to provide and publish this information, in guidance or whatever.

I rise to support my noble friend. A freedom of information Bill is coming to this House in due course and one of its great effects, should it become law, will be to open up this closed box of information that is kept by the likes of Ofsted and the FEFC. It is important information on how schools are run and managed, to which access to the public: and researchers is far too restricted. Outside researchers hardly ever have access to that information and analyses of how schools do and what kind of education works well. That access tends to be restricted to authorities' researchers alone. The freedom of information Bill will open that up and make this sort of information much more widely available on much better terms.

I hope the Government will recognise that the freedom of information Act is coming and adjust the terms of this Bill to accommodate the kind of openness that will be the ruling feature of the Act. It is important that information is collected—information cannot be made available if it is not collected. It must be clear that the right information is collected, that there are duties on the council to collect information that will be useful to people on a wide scale and not just to the limited clientele described in the Bill. I hope the Government will see their way to supporting my noble friend's amendments.

In relation to Amendment No. 81, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, appears to wish to dispute it. If he does he will misunderstand the nature of "information''. We cannot design information. Information is something that is collected. We can design systems for collecting it; but we cannot design it. If we design information all we get is lies.

I should like to take in turn Amendments Nos. 81, 82 to 85 and then 86 and 170, all of which relate in different ways to the provision of information.

I start by saying that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that Amendment No. 81 does not concern any political issue. I am impressed by how closely the noble Baroness scrutinised the Bill. But that is as far as I can go. I cannot accept the amendment, which is based on a belief that there is a grammatical inaccuracy in the Bill as it now stands.

I do not want to spend too much time on this; there are other matters with which we must deal. The effect of the amendment, and indeed what the noble Baroness means by it, is that it is the systems which the councils set up which could, in and of themselves, secure that the funding and other decisions are made on a sound basis. The Government argue that it is the information—for example, on learner and labour market needs—which will do the securing and not the mechanics and structures of the systems which will hold and process the information. So it is "information is" rather than "information are". I am afraid therefore that we reject the amendment and ask her to withdraw it.

Perhaps I may intervene at this stage and thank the Minister for his explanation. I read the wording with different breaks in it and feel that I must now withdraw my unqualified support for the noble Baroness that I gave earlier.

This must be the first time, certainly in my experience, that I have ever persuaded any Member of the Committee of the strength of my argument. It gives me encouragement for the future.

I turn to Amendment No. 82. The intention is to amend line 21 and Clause 21(2), which deals with requests from the Secretary of State, and not Clause 21(4), which links to line 27. I only say this for the sake of clarity and not to be clever, but I believe the amendment should read "Page 6, line 21" and not "line 27". I give way of course if I am wrong.

On a quick reading, I still think that I am right. I am less interested in where it goes than in whether the Minister thinks the point is good, and that information should be in the public arena.

Let us move straight to that aspect. It is neither surprising nor exceptional that the Bill contains a requirement of the LSC to respond to requests from the Secretary of State for information or advice on matters relating to its functions. Such a prevision—like its precedent in the 1992 Act—helps lay the foundation for good governance and a good working relationship between a Secretary of State and a non-departmental public body.

As to confidentiality, I had the pleasure of serving with the normal Lord, Lord Lucas, on the Select Committee that considered the draft Freedom of Information Bill. The revised Bill is still in another place. No doubt we will spend many hours, if not days, examining that Bill in due course.

Weeks.

I see another member of the Select Committee in his place, when he was not a few minutes ago.

But it will still be weeks.

I question whether a requirement to publish would not cut across good practice in relation to confidentiality. I believe that everyone, including those in your Lordships' House, is committed to the principle of open government, but due regard must be paid to ensuring the privacy of personal and commercially important policy information.

The publication of requests for information or advice, which might relate to the circumstances of individuals or future expenditure plans, may not always be appropriate or constructive. On that basis and with the law as I stands, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not press Amendment No. 82.

Amendments Nos. 83 and 85 would require the LSC to obtain information about all external qualifications, whether they are pursued in the secondary or further education sectors—including those delivered by private providers. Approvals will be made for qualifications under Clause 87 for the purposes of public funding by the LSC or LEAs, but approved qualifications may also be provided without any recourse to public funds. The amendments appear not to distinguish between qualifications that are publicly funded and those which are not. The LSC would have to supply information about the uptake and achievement of approved qualifications regardless of who funds them.

The amendments would impose a disproportionate additional burden on learning providers in both the public and private sectors. The information required would probably exceed the use to which it would be put—and far more than the LSC requires to meet management or financial information needs. It might replicate information that providers already supply to meet other requirements. Schools provide information about provision and achievement for various purposes under the Education Act 1996. The governing bodies of FE sector institutions will continue to be required to publish information on provision and achievement under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.

We want to ensure that information on achievement will be published. The current secondary and 16 to 18 performance tables and measures to monitor progress against national learning targets for young people and adults already provide the appropriately focused information that we all require, so we cannot accept the noble Baroness's three amendments.

As to Amendment No. 86 and—the Welsh connection—Amendment No. 170, I am conscious that there are Welsh experts seated in all parts of the Committee. Providing high-quality learning requires people with the necessary skills. In the prospectus we said that all providers will need to demonstrate to the local LSC that their employees have appropriate nationally recognised qualifications or at least have plans to acquire them. The LSC will base its requirements on work by the employment and further national training organisations—NTOs. That is the right approach to developing high-quality standards and recognises the independence of providers, whether they are FE colleges or private or voluntary sector training providers. The proper approach for the LSC as the purchaser is to set the standards its providers should meet, then support them in a process of continuous improvement using the best-quality management systems.

The amendments would make that a bureaucratic process, with costly and time-consuming data collection. It may be necessary from time to time—I hope this gives my noble friend some comfort—for the LSC to undertake surveys on matters such as staff qualifications, as does the FEFC with its annual survey of FE sector colleges. It would not be right to impose that practice by statute. The remuneration of staff employed by providers is a matter for employers rather than the LSC. I have to disappoint noble Lords, saying that I cannot accept the amendments.

I presume to intervene on this greater matter of the "is" and have considerable sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in the way that she has been misled by the construction of the sentence. I have never heard of information that is designed. Information is information. Surely the provision is stating, in simple English, that the council must establish systems to collect the information needed to provide a sound basis for its decisions. The draftsman has been less than lucid in expressing his intentions.

I support the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, because it is not just a grammatical point. Information cannot secure a decision, whether by design or otherwise. It will not be information that produces a sound decision but the council—based on the information that its systems should have provided. Even then the clause is not right; even systems cannot make sound decisions. I suggest that the Minister and his advisers have another look.

What is in a word? It is a clumsy sentence. Whether or not "is" and "are" present a problem, I implore the Government to take another look. However one reads the sentence, it does not make sense. It would be better for it, to make sense, especially as other practitioners will have to use the legislation as a working manual for delivering what the Government want.

The Minister was concerned about the split between publicly-funded a rid privately-funded education and training. Therefore, before I decide what to do about these amendments, I have a question for the noble Lord. If I bring forward amendments that refer to "publicly funded" education, will that make a difference to the Government's response?

I can tell the noble Baroness that if she did so we would certainly look at them carefully before deciding what our attitude would be. I do not think that she can expect more than that today.

I am grateful for that helpful indication and I shall certainly look at them again. However, I return to the school sector. Independent schools do provide information, although one cannot compel them to do so. That information is valuable and dovetails in with the information that comes from all the state and publicly-funded schools. It seems to me that it could be a feature of the 16-plus education.

I take most seriously the Minister's point about the burden on providers, especially when they are very small and medium-sized businesses. I should like to reconsider the wording of these amendments, and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

moved Amendment No. 87:

Page 6, line 29, leave out ("or advice") and insert (", advice or guidance").

moved Amendment No. 90:

Page 6, line 29, at end insert ("(including employment)").

moved Amendment No. 93:

After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

I warmly support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has already put forward most of the arguments. I very much like the amendment because it spells out the huge mix of transport needs for these people. It suggests ways of solving such problems and also emphasises the need for mobility training, which is very important. We tried to address this issue in 1992 and failed.

We are all agreed that post-16 learning is important for all, and especially so for people with learning difficulties. I should stress that I mean "learning difficulties" within the meaning of Clause 13, and not just those with learning disabilities. The Bill recognises this fact but, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, without the proper, planned provision, many disabled learners will not be able to benefit from what the Bill offers; and it offers a lot!

I turn now to the consortium on post-16 education. I should mention briefly and in parenthesis that SKILL is involved here and I declare an interest as I am its president. The consortium recognises the difficulties surrounding the transport issue. It is willing to assist the DfEE and the councils in finding solutions and, if it would be helpful, to address the practical implementation of the legislation in this respect. I very much hope that there will be an extremely positive response from the Government. This issue is crucial to the success of a Bill that has so much to offer.

I intended to speak to this issue on Second Reading, but I had to delete that part because my speech was already so long. Therefore, I should like to say a few words today to illustrate the importance of appropriate transport; and, indeed, the importance of training to negotiate public transport, especially for people with learning disabilities and those with learning difficulties. It is often assumed that the only barriers to transport are physical ones and that, therefore, people with learning disabilities are at no great disadvantage. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Travelling by public transport can be an extremely complex procedure, especially where a change of route or mode of transport is necessary. As we have just heard, for those who can eventually travel unaided, travel training is often a necessary pre-requisite. For many young people and their families there are also wider issues to consider, particularly issues relating to personal safety. Mencap's report, Living in Fear demonstrated that 25 per cent of people with learning disabilities who were surveyed had been bullied on public transport within the past year. This is an offensive and an unacceptable statistic, which will need to be tackled before transport can really be considered to be truly accessible.

I should like to give Members of the Committee an example, which may help to highlight some of my concerns. A young person I know through Mencap had great difficulty in using public transport. Her parents feared for her safety as she had been verbally and physically abused on her local bus service many times. She attended a college with a large and complex campus and needed some assistance in finding the pick-up point for the taxi that she used to travel to and from college because the meeting points varied from week to week. No one saw it as his or her job to give this help and, in the end, her parents had to withdraw her from the college because of fears for her safety.

I am, or have been, chairman of three other charities other than Mencap, each of which has been involved in funding transport for young people with disabilities and supporting the purchase of a large number of buses—not just for recreational purposes, but also for educational purposes. Public transport is not serving the wider public and local authorities are not meeting demand for specialist provision. In my view, this issue should be at the forefront of the efforts of the learning and skills councils to ensure, as we are promised, learning for all.

I should like to express my support for this amendment. I should also declare an interest as I am president of the Royal London Society for the Blind, which maintains a school for blind and visually-impaired children, and also a college for students aged 16 to 19 who are blind or visually impaired as well as having other multiple disabilities. I strongly support the amendment on the grounds adduced by the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth.

It does not really matter whether the education is adequate, sufficient or appropriate if it cannot actually be accessed. If a child under 16 has been statemented and goes to a school, the local authority has a statutory obligation to en sure that he or she gets to the appropriate school. However, that does not apply to those young persons aged 16 to 19.

I made some inquiries of our students to see how they coped with the situation. Some students are in residential boarding accommodation, so they have access to the college immediately. Others make a daily journey. For some it is hazardous and very difficult. In some cases parents or friends help out. For the most part, the students have to make their way themselves, often bearing the cost themselves. Some may benefit from the mobility allowance; others do not.

I hope very much that the Minister will recognise that this is an appropriate amendment. I congratulate her on both Clauses 13 and 14. Undoubtedly, they are a considerable improvement on the present arrangements. To have matters so clearly set out on the face of the Bill in statute is an enormous benefit for anyone aged 16 to 19 who has a learning difficulty. However, in the debates which took place last week the noble Lord, Lord Rix, wanted the age extended to age 25. I agree. But that is for another occasion. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the amendment. It will not have escaped her attention, because she is quite an astute Minister, that it has all-party support. However, she may have some hesitancy in welcoming subsection (1) which says very clearly,

"shall secure the provision of financial resources",

that is, cash.

I can assure my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch that this is an area in which the Treasury will be interested. The Treasury will pay great attention. The dead hand of the Treasury will settle upon it. I hope that the Minister resists that dead hand and welcomes the intention and spirit of the new clause. I am sure that she would not want to be embarrassed at a later stage of the Bill by this Chamber imposing its will on a reluctant government in this area.

As a member of the Labour Party whose name is to this amendment, I strongly support it. In speaking to education Bills throughout my many years in this Chamber, I have always tried to enable children to get to their place of education. The Government have moved a long way forward in helping with financial resources for over-16s. That is admirable. I hope that my noble friend can give some encouragement on the point we are discussing.

It must be obvious from what I said earlier today and on Tuesday that I support these amendments. It is not only that if the transport is not available the person cannot get to the education in question, but, speaking of mentally handicapped young people, if they are left hanging around outside the school or the course for a very long time, the effect can be quite traumatic and can nullify any good effect that the education may have had. I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and hope that the Government can do likewise.

My name is attached to the amendment. I want to make two points. First, the pressure will fall on local authorities for this head of expenditure. Therefore, it will present them with difficulties. The other point is that over-16s in many authorities are at present losing transport whether they have special needs or not.

I have had interesting discussions with Conservative colleagues in local government in different parts of the country where transport has been removed for those aged over 16. If a young person lives in a village some miles from the nearest town and they do not have transport, they simply cannot reach the college. It is too far to walk. The bus services do not operate at times that help them. The one car, if there is a car in the family, has usually been used in the morning by whoever is working in the household. There is an issue about transport for young people in the 16 to 19 age range. But for people with learning difficulties and people with disabilities, the problem is compounded. It does not end at age 19: we are talking here about people up to age 25. My noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking says that the obligation to provide is strengthened by the Bill. However, providing adequate provision for this age group will not be worth anything if they cannot physically arrive at the institution.

I am extremely sympathetic towards the sentiments that I believe lie behind the amendment. I do recognise, as the noble friend, Lord Baker, said, that there is all-party support for the amendment. Incidentally, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support of Clauses 13 and 14 and to my noble friend Lady David. I fully accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, says about the availability of suitable transport being fundamental to equal opportunities and enabling some people with learning difficulties to take part in post-16 education and training.

The problem about the amendment is that it goes much further. It would require the LSC to fund transport for all students with learning difficulties regardless of the nature of their difficulty and irrespective of whether assistance with transport was helpful in enabling them to participate in learning. Certainly, the Treasury would want to resist such a change. I would have some sympathy with that approach in the sense that this might not be the most sensible way of supporting some young people who have learning difficulties but who do not have a problem with transport.

There is already provision in place to help post-16 students, including those with learning difficulties, with the cost of their transport. Under Section 509 of the Education Act 1996 local education authorities have a duty to make such arrangements as they consider necessary for the provision of transport for the purposes of facilitating the attendance of people attending schools and FE institutions. Where transport is provided it has to be free of charge. Local education authorities also have power to provide other forms of assistance for any other student. Many students with learning difficulties or disabilities are helped with transport in this way. Colleges can and do supplement what is provided by local education authorities by providing transport themselves or by offering financial assistance towards the cost of provision by transport companies. Much of this support comes from the access funds which the Government provide to all colleges in recognition of the importance of transport. The Government have significantly increased the size of the access fund from £47 million this year to £89 million in the year 2000–2001.

The Government recognise that more needs to be done to improve transport for post-16 year-olds and are currently examining how this can be done. We have recently introduced measures, through the local authority standards fund, which will provide financial assistance for those on low incomes who remain at school after the age of 16. The fund will enable local education authorities to support a range of needs which include transport. Later this year we will begin a new pilot initiative to support 16 to 19 year-old students in full-time education with their transport costs. As with the education and maintenance allowance scheme, it will target support at young people from low income households. It will be piloted in both rural and urban areas. The pilot areas are currently being selected. Our intention is that the scheme should help those students living in areas with particular transport difficulties. We are also considering whether both the LEA pilots and the proposed new transport pilots should be extended to cater for circumstances where people with learning difficulties or disabilities may have finished compulsory education at a later age or have taken longer to complete a course, as is sometimes the case. We will consult the disability organisations before making a decision about whether and how this might be taken forward. Through these improvements in the general level of transport and support for students, I think we will increase the provision which can be used to help students with disabilities. The Government believe that this is a better way forward than identifying specific groups to be given an entitlement which would not be available to others in education and training.

These issues were discussed by the Disability Rights Task Force which, as the Committee is aware, recommended in its report at the end of last year that the transport exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act should end. The Government are considering how to respond to that recommendation.

I share the view of Members of the Committee that people whose learning difficulties or disabilities make travelling a difficult and stressful experience should have access to the transport they need. That is why we are strengthening our existing arrangements. However, I do not think that we can grant an entitlement to transport for all people with learning difficulties regardless of the nature of their learning difficulties. That would work directly at the expense of others such as those in deprived or rural areas who may also be dependent on assistance with transport to take up learning opportunities.

Moreover, the Bill includes powers to enable the LSC to fund institutions and to fund the provision of ancillary activities, such as transport, under Clause 5(3). The LSC planning framework will enable gaps to be identified. The LSC could also consider using discretionary funding. I hope that those who have spoken in the debate will accept that the Government are sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment. However, I hope that in the light of my explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I hope that I may ask her one question. I absolutely take the point that the noble Baroness has just made; namely, there are problems as regards providing a blanket entitlement to all people with learning difficulties. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause in the amendment states,

"The Council shall secure the provision of financial resources to persons providing transport to enable people with learning difficulties".

If one then inserted the words,

"who otherwise could not access adequate provision",

under the relevant measure in the legislation, one would restrict the measure to those people for whom provision is being made but who cannot access it.

If the noble Baroness or any of the other speakers in this debate wishes to table an amendment along those lines, the Government will certainly consider whether it is acceptable. Of course, in doing so we would have to consider problems of definition.

I thank the Minister for that reply. I also thank those who have taken part in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, congratulated the Minister on Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill. I very much admire the elegant way in which he waved a parliamentary rapier at the Government with regard to certain issues.

We seek to ensure that there is coverage across the board on this matter. Every time disability problems arise, we are invariably told that good practice exists. As I say, one of the main aims of the amendment is to seek coverage across the board. The Minister did not properly address that point, probably because she could not do so as provision depends on the scheme someone is involved in. I suggest that the most important provision is mobility training to enable people to access public transport. We should all reconsider other approaches to this issue to push the matter further at a later stage. I shall certainly return to the matter. I encourage everyone else to rack their brains in this regard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 94:

Page 7, line 17, at end insert ("and to each local authority").

Clause 14 will make sure that the learning and skills council accounts for the provision of post-16 education and training that it makes for people with disabilities. It carries forward the duties placed upon the FEFC by the Disability Discrimination Act. As Members of the Committee have already said, Clause 14 will be of help in creating wider access for adults with disabilities, as the Disability Rights Task Force has recommended.

I also take the view that we should leave this matter to the good sense of the learning and skills council. At present, for example, although the FEFC is not under a duty to send copies of its report to anyone other than the Secretary of State, it nevertheless sends a copy to each FE college. That is good practice and common sense. I would expect the LSC to adopt a similar approach and, reflecting its wider responsibilities, send its report not only to LEAs but also to employers, FE colleges and voluntary organisations with whom it will work. However, these arrangements should be a matter for the LSC and not for legislation. I hope that the Committee will be reassured that local authorities will have access to the LSC's reports in this area, and that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

I believe that the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness apply also to the Secretary of State. One could argue that if the council is to produce the report, that is clearly intended for someone and therefore the Secretary of State would receive a copy. I suggest the wording "all relevant bodies" as the Disability Rights Commission will presumably take an interest in the report as it concerns disabled persons. I shall reflect on what the noble Baroness has said. I believe that either Clause 14(2) should be deleted as the council will in any case send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State, or the words "all relevant bodies" should be included in the provision. Local authorities are worried that they appear to be "airbrushed out" of the system here. As I say, under local government legislation, they are obliged to become involved in certain matters. They certainly will be concerned with education, training and links with employment. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 95:

Page 7, line 29, leave out from second ("year") to end of line 31 and insert ("and which should reflect the education and training needs of each local learning and skills council area").

We on these Benches have considerable sympathy with this amendment. Many organisations, including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the TEC National Council, British Chambers of Commerce and the Local Government Association have all been very concerned indeed that plans drawn up by the LSC, and in particular by the local bodies, should reflect local needs. At national level there should also be some consideration of the overall national skills needs. In particular the CBI is very concerned about that issue.

However, I am not convinced that this amendment rightly fits at this point in the Bill. I have pondered the issue. It is concerned with the annual plans of the council itself, but local needs come later on under Clause 22. We shall be putting forward a number of amendments to take account of local needs. However, generally we support the spirit of the amendment because of the strongly expressed views of a number of organisations that the council should take into account the users of skills as well as the providers.

The LSC as a whole will draw its strength from having both a coherent national strategy and strong local arms which will ensure that local needs are met. That is at the centre of the new arrangement. We believe in the importance of local arms, contrary to what I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was suggesting in saying that we were adopting an excessively top-down approach. That is why we are recruiting influential people to the local councils of the LSC. It is also why we are devolving decision-making on the allocation of the majority of the LSC's budget to local level and why we are establishing a system which makes possible a bottom-up approach to drawing up local plans which will encourage local providers to put forward their proposals for meeting the needs and requirements that have been identified locally.

Therefore, I believe it is self-evident that the plans of local LSCs, as provided for in Clause 22, will set out how they propose to discharge their responsibilities in the light of the education and training needs of the area. That is exactly what these plans are for.

But it is not what the national LSC's operational plan is for. The purpose of that document is to set out how the LSC will deliver the objectives set for it as an NDPB which has agreed with the Secretary of State what targets it plans to meet and how it will spend its budget. Where the Secretary of State directs the LSC in accordance with his powers in Clause 25, it is surely essential that the council should set out how it proposes to comply with the directions in making and publishing its plan. If it did not do so, its planning would be neither effective nor transparent. Having heard those remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.

My nervousness is shared by so many people outside. Clearly, from what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said and the list of outside bodies mentioned by her, there are concerns about this matter. It is all very well to say that the national council will reflect local needs. The truth is, whatever the local councils and the LEAs do, they will be obliged under this Bill to act only in conformity with what is happening at national level.

There is a worry that a straitjacket will be created and movement within that will have to be in conformity with the framework sent down from on high. I heed the cautionary words of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in that this might not be the right place in the Bill to deal with this issue. What we all want is something in the Bill which gives force to what the noble Baroness aspires to; namely, that the process should be bottom-up and not top-down.

At the moment everything in the Bill emanates from the Secretary of State through the national council down to the local skills councils. There needs to be something on the face of the Bill to indicate that that is not so. The plan will be business driven, skills and local education needs driven, but very much at a local level. When we speak about people moving from education training into the workforce, it is only the local influence which is going to work and not national plans or strategies, which may dovetail together in some parts of the country but not in others. We all know that this country is very diverse. The idea of a single plan coming from on high within which everyone has to operate is a cause of concern. We shall continue to badger on this point until we find something on the face of the Bill which gives strength to the points that we are making. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 96:

Page 7, line 33, at end insert—

("(5) The Council must send a copy of the financial plan to the Secretary of State and to each local authority.").

Amendment No. 96 is not necessary. The plan will be published and made available, including on the Internet, for whoever wants to see it. We have to take into account new technology even in areas of this kind. Local authorities may well have an interest in the plan, but a statutory requirement to send hard copies to each of 388 local authorities in England is unnecessary. It is also bureaucratic and not quite in touch with the 21st century. Given the concerns expressed by noble Lords earlier this week about the need to reduce bureaucracy, I am surprised that this amendment has been tabled.

As we made clear in the prospectus, local authorities already have a dual role in the new arrangements that this Bill will secure as key providers of adult and community learning and as bodies which have a vital strategic role to play in furthering the social and economic interests of their communities. Our arrangements reflect that dual role. Clauses 22 and 23 provide ways of preparing the plans. Local LSCs will set out the provisions which LEAs will be expected to secure and the resources to be made available.

Turning to the issue of the Secretary of State being sent a copy, we would expect DfEE officials to discuss with the LSC its proposed annual plan in the course of the normal relationship between a sponsor department and an NDPB. A specific provision to send a hard copy to the Secretary of State is therefore not necessary. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will agree to withdraw this amendment.

Turning now to Amendment No. 98, the rolling strategy document provided for in Clause 16 will have a medium-term scope of at least three years. It is designed to identify strategic objectives and priorities for post-16 learning and as an account of the role that the LSC will play, alongside others, in pursuing those objectives and in achieving targets set by the Secretary of State—for example, the national learning targets.

This document is not the place to set out in detail what the LSC will purchase with its budget indeed, it may not know in detail its forward budgets for the whole of the period in question. The place for this more detailed information is in the annual plan provided for in Clause 15. I hope, therefore, that this amendment also can be withdrawn.

There is an inconsistency in the Bill and in what the noble Baroness said. The Minister's argument on Clause 14(2) was that it was important to put on the face of the Bill that the council will send a hard copy of the report to the Secretary of State. Her argument on Clause 15 is that of course the Secretary of State will receive a hard copy of the report and therefore there is no need to put it on the face of the Bill. That seems I o me to be an inconsistent argument. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 97:

Page 7, line 34, after ("a") insert ("workforce development").

On the issue of workforce development, let me reassure the noble Baroness that that will be an important part of the LSC's remit. That is partly why we have said that 40 per cent of the members of the national and local LSCs will have substantial recent business or commercial experience, together with the national chair and most local chairs. The LSC will work at both national and local levels with a wide range of other bodies with an interest in workforce development.

At national level this will include NTOs, trade unions, the Small Business Service, RDAs, Investors in People UK and the UM Working with these partners the national LSC will be responsible for articulating a clear agenda for action on workforce development, for driving this forward through its local arms and for working in partnership with others. For example, it will work very closely with NTOs in developing frameworks for sector workforce development plans.

Local councils will prepare workforce development plans for their areas, taking account of the national framework and the skill priorities identified by the RDAs. We have a real opportunity with the new arrangements to build on the success of TECs, with initiatives such as Investors in People, and to strengthen links between learning and work—links which are at the heart of what we are striving to achieve.

But the amendment that we are considering, in seeking to emphasise the importance of workforce development, would mean that the LSC's three-year rolling strategy would only cover workforce development and nothing else. I am sure the noble Baroness does not intend this. I hope that she will withdraw Amendment No. 97. I can certainly assure the noble Baroness that the plans that the LSC draws up at both national and local levels will give full weight to workforce development.

The sentiment behind Amendment No 99 very much chimes with our expectation that the LSC should be an inclusive body which reaches out and works effectively with all relevant partners. We want to see meaningful consultation ingrained into its culture. We expect that the people we recruit to the most senior posts will be people who can network effectively across a wide range of interests.

As I said, we certainly intend that the LSC will consult widely with all its key partners in putting together its strategic plans. We stated that clearly in the LSC prospectus. This will be essential if it is to draw on the experience that others can offer.

However, we see no reason to set this out as a specific obligation in the Bill. Consultation is already required with a number of bodies, including LEAs, on the national LSC's guidance to its local arms. There is also already provision for wide consultation on the important local plans, and we will consider how we might secure the involvement of all local authorities in this. Key partners will also have a direct input into the direction of the national LSC through their links with members of the council itself, and, of course, with members of the adult and young people's learning committees, and through links at sectoral, regional and local level.

With these assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

I thank the Minister for her reply. I take on board the reassurances she has given us on both issues. It is good to have it on the record and I am grateful to her for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 100:

Page 8, line 19, leave out subsection (4).

The provision in the Bill follows the precedent of Section 8(4) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 which gives the Secretary of State a similar power in relation to the funding council. That power has been used on only one occasion, when last year the Further Education Funding Council took responsibility for the Government's new dance and drama provisions for talented students.

Just as the power under the 1992 Act has provided a useful safety net for an important scheme which the primary powers of the FEFC would otherwise rule out, so I should expect the similar powers in respect of the LSC to be used rarely. The Government set out their reasons for advocating the use of secondary legislation in that area to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The noble Baroness will know that that expert committee did not see any need to draw any difficulties over such a power to the attention of the House.

The Secretary of State's power to confer or impose supplementary powers or duties on the LSC is limited in two important ways. First, any supplementary powers or duties must be within the ambit of the Secretary of State's functions. Secondly, they must be relevant to the provision of facilities for post-16 education and training. In response to the noble Baroness's question, as I understand it those regulations would be of the negative rather than the affirmative kind. I hope that that is to some extent the discussion that the noble Baroness sought on that topic. Having listened to what has been said, no doubt she will withdraw the amendment.

I am grateful to the Minister. I wanted to know whether the regulations would come through the negative or affirmative procedure. From what the Minister said, my understanding is that they will come through the negative procedure. That reassures me. If the Minister had not explained that point I was going to come back to say that I recollect seeing a negative order concerning dance and drama when the power was transferred. I am looking across to the Front Bench opposite for nods in my direction, but there are none. I was simply going to ask for the same facility, but if the regulations are to come through the negative procedure, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I have tabled the Motion because Clause 18 begs so many questions that I believed that the best course of action would be to oppose it standing part of the Bill in order to try to discover exactly what it means.

We know that there are training and enterprise councils on independent corporations, but also that they have considerable assets. A number of issues arise from that point. First, the TUPE arrangements for the transfer of staff. I know that the Government have not yet pronounced on that matter. It would be helpful to know quite what that is to be. As I understand it, the assets of the training and enterprise councils will, as they wind up, in fact revert to the Secretary of State. If that is the case, where do those assets lie? Do they become subject to possible disposal or acquisition on the part of the clause?

Secondly, the powers relating to the acquisition and disposal of land and property are considerable. In Clause 18(2)(c), there is a reference to investing, "sums not immediately needed"—in other words, if there is money in the purse, there is the facility for investing. However, Clause 18(3)(c) states that they would be prevented from.

"hold[ing] shares in a company, or otherwise becom[ing] a member of a company, unless the Secretary of State consents".

Does that mean that the only place that the money may lie is in a building society or a bank? It is difficult to know how free a body would be to invest money that is not around. We all know the importance of that: if money is lying around and not appreciating, its value is of course depreciating.

I turn to the reference to "gifts". I am slightly unnerved to see that the council will be free to accept gifts. I am not quite sure what that will mean and what the accountability system for receiving gifts and accepting financial resources will be. I am assuming that the reference to accepting financial resources relates to other providers in the field, but, again, I do not know. Subsection (3) states that the council will not be able to borrow or to lend money, with the caveat,

"unless the Secretary of State consents".

I know that there have been instances from time to time where money has been lent. I am not so sure whether the local authority in Hammersmith and Fulham was given powers to lend money to some of the establishments in its authority because it was in particular difficulty this year. Not surprisingly, the Prime Minister has a direct interest in that authority. I do not know whether or not that was the reason for permission being given. I am concerned about the powers to lend and the criteria that would be used by the Secretary of State in agreeing to allow the council to lend moneys.

I have many questions about the clause, including the issue of risk. Will the Minister make some comment about risk: risk management; the degree to which the council will be able to engage in any activity when it is preserving and conserving its funds; the degree to which risk will be allowed and could be managed; and the degree to which the council would be accountable? Precisely which bodies would be making their land, property and assets available to the council for disposal and acquisition? I oppose the Question that the clause shall stand part of the Bill.

I fear that I shall not be able to answer all the important questions raised by the noble Baroness. Of course, Clause 18 gives the national LSC additional general powers which it may exercise to enable it to perform its core functions. As she will know, that is a standard approach to ensure that an independent corporate body such as the LSC has the necessary powers to underpin its main functions. The powers enabling the LSC to form companies or take shares in a company may in practice involve facilitating appropriate partnership working at the local and national level for local workforce development or regeneration and economic development objectives. The powers of the FEFC were more limited in that area. If the LSC is to play an important role in local partnerships, as TECs do now, it is important that it has the appropriate powers.

I am sure that most noble Lords would support such activities which can add value and make a difference in local areas, in particular through levering in wider resources. Clause 18 provides the LSC with important supplementary powers to enable it to play the strategic powerful role in the community which we advocated in the White Paper and in the prospectus.

As regards TUPE and the assets of TECs, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to be patient and to wait until we debate Amendment No. 202 after Clause 84. That may be a more appropriate point to discuss assets.

As regards lending money, the circumstances in which we see that as both possible and a good thing, would be, for example, to help a provider with cashflow difficulties, and possibly also in the field of individual loans.

The noble Baroness referred to the use of gifts. That is nothing new. There is a provision to the same effect under Schedule 1 of the Act relating to the FEFC. As to her other detailed questions, it may be that some will be answered when we deal with the later amendment. Those are the considerations that we ask the Committee to bear in mind when asking that the clause stand part.

Perhaps I may follow up the noble Lord's remarks with a couple of extra questions. I should like him to take advantage of the extensive amount of time that we have available to us this evening to see whether he might reach into the resources available to him and give some explanation as to the kind of balance that the council will be asked to apply in regard to assets, risks and rewards.

The wording of the clause is very strange. It seems that the council will be able to speculate without restraint in land and property. It will be able to enter into contracts—so it can dance around the futures market if it can find a good reason for doing so. But it will not be able to lend money—in other words it will not be able to place money with a bank or building society, because that is letting out money at interest; it is lending money in any ordinary sense of the word. The clause provides no picture of the degree of prudence that the institution is meant to exercise. It will be allowed to invest sums, but if it cannot put them into a bank or building society (because it cannot lend) and it cannot invest in company shares, is it supposed to have some kind of weird gilt-edged "stock-swap" arrangement with the Bank of England? What exactly is going on when it comes to the management of short-term assets? I should appreciate some enlightenment from the noble Lord. I hope that he will find the time and resources to afford it to us this evening.

I am glad the noble Lord thinks that we have plenty of time on our hands. I am not sure that I agree.

The noble Lord's questions can be answered in the following way. The clause gives the LSE wide powers to manage its funds. We shall look at Hansard tomorrow and at the questions raised in order to see whether we can give a more satisfactory answer, possibly in the form of a letter.

There is nothing unusual in Clause 18. Much of the provision is to be found in the 1992 Act in relation to the FEFC, although, as I have said, this Bill strengthens the powers of the new LSC compared to the previous organisation. We shall take away the questions and comments of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness and see what we can do to help answer them.

I am grateful if the noble Lord is going away to think about what has been said in the course of discussion on this clause. It raises questions about the parameters in which the provision will operate; risk and risk management; accountability; and the definition of lending. I had ruled out almost everything except putting money into a building society; but, technically, that would be lending. Therefore, some clarification would be helpful.

I entirely take the point about TUPE. That is the only subject that I raised which will be specifically dealt with later in the Bill. I shall not insist that the clause is taken out of the Bill at this stage. However, I should welcome a fulsome, comprehensive letter answering all the points raised.

The noble Lord referred to previous arrangements when the FEFC was set up. There is something rather different happening here. There is a national council, 47 local councils, the wind-up of 72 training and enterprise councils, and there will be a massive movement of liabilities, assets, land and property. Some understanding of how all that will be managed would be helpful. I shall not press my opposition to the clause.

moved Amendment No. 102:

Page 8, line 31, at end insert ("and a co-ordinating committee for the five committees in London").

Can the noble Lord, Lord Tope, tell the Committee what the co-ordinating committee is to co-ordinate? If there are five committees it is inevitable that from time to time there will be disagreement in the sense that they will regard themselves as their own masters and able to do as they wish. That question must be answered. The other side of the coin—perhaps I am wrong—is that the co-ordinating committee will be given supreme power. If I correctly understand the noble Lord, he believes that there should be one committee instead of five but that that has not come about. Therefore, he believes that the amendment will do what he thinks should be done. The noble Lord shakes his head. However, if there are five committees is extremely unlikely that that will happen. I believe that the Committee is entitled to more information.

I hesitate to respond at this stage because I suspect that in a moment the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, will answer some of the points. I shook my head because I wondered whether I was being criticised for tabling an amendment which sought to achieve what I wanted to achieve. I am sure that that was not what the noble Lord meant but that was how I understood his comment.

I refer the noble Lord to Amendment No. 110 in the name of his noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. Subsection (4) of the new clause describes very well the functions of a co-ordinating committee. I do not argue with that. I believe it to be a necessary and important function. The fragmentation into five local councils in London weakens the input into the London Development Agency and the GLA. There is a great need to co-ordinate the activity. I believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, describes the position very well.

Since there has been so much mention of the amendment standing in my name, perhaps it is appropriate at this stage to say a few words about it. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment accepted the recommendation of the board of the London Development Partnership that there should be five learning and skills councils within London. I am sure that I do not disclose privileged information when I say that the matter was widely debated by the board of the London Development Partnership and that the recommendation that there should be five learning and skills councils was agreed by only a very narrow margin.

A number of the partners felt strongly that, given the nature of London's labour market, which is distinct from elsewhere in the country, one learning and skills council was appropriate. But even those within the board who argued for five learning and skills councils—in the end, they formed a majority—were clear about the importance of having some kind of co-ordinating body to ensure that London-wide challenges were tackled and that there was a pan-London approach to some of the issues that might arise. Therefore, the recommendation of the London Development Partnership, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment accepted, was that there should be five learning and skills councils with a co-ordinating body for the purpose of ensuring that London-wide challenges were tackled.

Unfortunately, there is no mention of the co-ordinating body either in the Bill or in the learning and skills prospectus. I am well aware that during the Second Reading debate a number of noble Lords spoke of the need for such a London co-ordinating body. While acknowledging the recommendations of the London Development Partnership, the Minister stopped short, according to my reading, of giving a firm commitment that such a co-ordinating body for London would be established. For that reason I have put my name to the amendment which the Committee is to consider today.

My noble friend has asked what this co-ordinating body might do. I do not believe that it is the intention of anyone that that body should act as a learning and skills council for London as a whole; otherwise, the five learning and skills councils would be redundant. But it is important that the co-ordinating body ensures that across London the skills needed throughout the city are addressed. It is extremely important for the UK economy as a whole that London gets the skills agenda right. London drives one-fifth of the nation's GDP—possibly more, depending on the definitions used—and it is in no one's interest to have skills gaps because of a failure to co-ordinate the actions of five separate councils. We must ensure that we provide the skills and expertise to enable London's economy to prosper. The co-ordinating body will assist in that process. I am sure that that is something which all Members of the Committee support.

It is also of critical importance that an overview is taken of issues to do with social exclusion so that work on promoting skills and work in the city can be addressed across London as a whole. It is difficult to understand how the challenges can be properly addressed in isolation by five free-standing learning and skills councils if London's population is to benefit from the new arrangements proposed in the Bill. The arrangement will work only if there are strong and effective mechanisms for co-ordination to ensure that the councils, albeit using their independent expertise, are able to work together effectively.

In addition, London will be the first city with an elected mayor and assembly, and the only city region in the United Kingdom. It is of particular importance that in London the five learning and skills councils fit their strategies to those of the London Development Agency, which the Bill supports. That can be done much more conveniently if there is proper co-ordination of their work. How can five learning and skills councils work effectively with the other vital pan-London partners, such as the Single Small Business Service for London, if there is no mechanism to do it?

The pace of change in London is very rapid, and people must adapt their skills if they are to stay and progress in work. A recent survey by the London Skills Forecasting Unit showed that employers judged that almost 10 per cent of their employees did not have the skills to carry out their current job responsibilities. It is important that the five learning and skills councils work together to anticipate employers' needs based on a London-wide assessment and analysis of labour market information.

I hope that the good work of the London Skills Forecasting Unit can be made available across London to the new learning and skills council. That can be best achieved if there is a co-ordinating mechanism. Therefore, a new co-ordinating body is needed with powers to enable it to predict future skill needs, secure the continued growth and vibrancy of London's economy, promote social inclusion and address the skills and training needs associated with all of those issues. I hope very much that the Minister will recognise the need to give effect to the unanimous recommendation of the London Development Partnership by making provision for a powerful co-ordinating body for London.

It is difficult to argue for yet more committees given the Bill before us. We must be the most over-governed country in the world. We start off with the European Parliament, followed by the Westminster Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies, rural development agencies, county councils, borough and district councils, town and parish councils, the London mayor, the London assembly and the London Development Agency. We now have a national learning and skills council and 47 local councils. The only argument that resonates with me is the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, which was then dismissed as one that had been lost some time ago; namely, that if there is real force in the argument that London should be regarded as an entity and that policies should apply to the whole of it, it is better to have a single local learning and skills council than five, which entail the creation of another body to ensure that all of them work together.

In view of the time that will be taken up and the mixed messages that will come from the Secretary of State through the national council, and sideways through the rural development agencies, the London Development Agency, the co-ordinating council and the local councils, there is a powerful argument for saying that London should be looked at again. To have a co-ordinating committee on top of five committees is not an answer.

If we are trying to make sense of the arrangements the Government propose for London, we have to realise that London is an integrated whole with a very good transport system, which leads to large numbers of people living in certain areas and working in others, so that across the five areas of London there will be patches where the training requirements occur in one area for an industry in one area but actually the people live in a different area. There will be a great need for co-operation and indeed cross-working between the five London areas if we are to get an effective system for London.

What concerns me, therefore, is the apparent prohibition in Clause 22(3) of a local council paying for provision in another council's area. Given the particular skills which are going to be available in the educational institutions in the middle of London and the ease of getting to the middle of London, I suggest it would always seem appropriate for some of the rarer skills in particular to be catered for in the middle as a matter of co-operation between all five councils. To have a system which appears to mean that councils cannot pay for that provision out of area, or at least cannot plan for it, would give me considerable cause for concern. I hope the Government will be able to provide reassurance that whatever structure we have for these five councils working together, they will be able to invest training money in each other's areas so that there can be a combined provision between the five areas, though the provision may be located in only one of the areas.

May I ask my noble friend, before she replies, to say whether she feels that London is unique in this respect? What about Birmingham and what about Manchester? Is this something which would have to be done in other parts of the country?