asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Lead Shot Legislation (England) Review Group meeting is planned for Thursday, 30th March 2000 in Bristol. Letters of invitation have already been sent out to a number of organisations covering all interests in this issue.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. I see that the invitations were sent out immediately after my Question was put down. Will the Minister bear in mind that, whatever may have been said when we debated the orders, non-toxic bismuth shot has not and will not come down in price? Will the Minister bear in mind that that is causing great hardship to very many shooters? Will she look carefully at the possibility of permitting other tailored non-toxic shot? In addition, will she review the existing order and return to the original designation of listed SSSIs, removing from it the moorland species of snipe and golden plover?

My Lords, the remit of the working group is specifically to review the Schedule 1 list of sites. Furthermore, the Government would like to discuss other issues relating to the effectiveness of the legislation, including of course the availability of alternative shot, compliance by shooters and police experience. For the benefit of the House, perhaps it may help if I say that the National Farmers Union has been added to the list of consultees. I believe that this morning the NFU agreed to take part in the meeting.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that these regulations look as though they were drawn up by someone who would suffer from agoraphobia on Islington Green? Is there not a fundamental error here, in that the restrictions are not related to where the shot falls, but to the species of bird being shot? No harm can come from shooting a duck over a dry meadow, except, of course, to the duck. However, shooting a pheasant over wetland does present a hazard because the shot could fall into the wetlands. Does the Minister agree that the Government have simply got it the wrong way round?

My Lords, the order covers both specific sites and specific species of birds. I have no doubt that, if the view of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is widely held, it is exactly the kind of issue that will be raised at the review group meeting. However, given the membership of the original working group, I hardly think that one could claim that a fair cross-section of wide-ranging experience in this field was not present when the order was originally drawn up.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how long the working group has been in existence?

My Lords, the working group was established once its members had had enough time to gain valid experience of the order. It is due to report in time to influence any possible changes by the start of the shooting season.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kimball referred to the high cost of bismuth. Is the noble Baroness aware that the most effective main alternative to bismuth is, similarly, more than three times the cost of lead shot? That is causing a great deal of distress to many people. Furthermore, is the Minister aware that efforts are being made to develop alternatives which would be less expensive, equally effective and, in my opinion, environmentally friendly? Will the Minister give an assurance that the working group will be entitled to study such alternatives once they have been produced, and to make recommendations accordingly?

My Lords, I am sure that the working group will take into account any representations that are made. I welcome the news that detailed work is being carried out on alternative shot. However, no one should be in any doubt about the damage that can be caused to the environment by the use of lead shot.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, competition between airlines brings real benefits for passengers in terms of value for money and improved choice. UK airlines have a good record in competing energetically and fairly, and we expect all airlines in Europe also to compete fairly. We have not yet received details of this particular complaint from the European Commission. The Commission is required to carry out its investigations in close and constant liaison with member states and we would expect to be consulted by the Commission in due course. We will ensure that Go's legitimate interests are protected. It would be a great pity if, in the meantime, passengers on the London to Munich route ended up paying higher fares.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The allegation is that since Go started trading on this route, Lufthansa has systematically tracked its fares. When Go announced its departure from the route, Lufthansa raised its fare from £59 to £129. However, when Go filed a complaint with the Commission, the Lufthansa fare mysteriously reduced again from £129 to £55. However, is not the real worry that this case could take up to two years to be settled by the Commission? For that reason, will the Government press the Commission to try to deal with the matter more quickly? It is to the long-term disbenefit of both passengers and potential competitors in the airline industry if such complaints take as long as two years to be sorted out.

My Lords, I share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. The complaint was made only on 28th February. As I understand it, the case has yet to be assigned a case officer within the Commission. The first step will be for the Commission to determine whether it is in the interests of the Community for the case to be pursued. Should such an investigation be initiated, it will be conducted in liaison with other member states. It is likely to be several weeks before any papers reach us. However, I agree with the noble Lord that investigations by the Commission can take an unduly long time. If necessary, we will use our best efforts to press the Commission to proceed quickly.

My Lords, what are the best efforts that the Government are able to make in this regard? Is it not a scandal that Go should be penalised for a period as long as two years? I apologise for not being able to articulate more clearly, but I suffered a stroke on 3rd December. I do not want Go to have a stroke in the interim.

My Lords, I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say how pleased we all are to see my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis back in his seat. I am always daunted by having him sitting at my back, staunch friend though he is, because his knowledge is so much greater than mine in these areas.

It is true that the Commission's investigations can be lengthy. It does have powers to take interim measures against anti-competitive practices where there is clear prima facie evidence of such behaviour. We shall certainly work with Go and do everything we can to ensure that British interests are protected.

My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's anxiety to curtail the duration of these proceedings, is it not the case that if someone in the United Kingdom notices that someone else is about to undertake an illegal or anti-competitive practice there is recourse to an injunction that has immediate effect and can be proceeded with quickly? Is there an equivalent procedure available within the Community? If not, should not that situation be remedied?

My Lords, we understand that the Commission has advised Go that it is unlikely that it could take interim measures as predatory pricing is a very difficult allegation to prove. However, noble Lords can be assured that we shall certainly investigate every avenue of recourse for British interests.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the British public will not take lightly any suggestion that the Commission can deal with this affair, in so far as it affects Great Britain, at its own convenience? The fact that we have raised a complaint in the matter should be sufficient to ensure that it is attended to immediately, and the Commission should be told so!

My Lords, we shall leave the European Commission in no doubt as to the view of this House.

My Lords, a single and deregulated market in air traffic in the EU is obviously of benefit to passengers, but we need a much more effective watchdog in such a market. Is it possible for the Government to do more than merely support Go and actually try to ensure that these procedures are made more rapid?

My Lords, perhaps I may repeat my assurance that we shall do everything in our power to ensure that these matters are expedited.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the liberalisation of European aviation has produced real benefits for consumers? Does he also agree that the routes where the fares tend to be higher are those on which there is no competition? Does my noble friend further agree that any study of fare structures would show that the routes from London are favourable when compared to those of our competitors?

My Lords, liberalisation of the European aviation market has brought great benefits to consumers. Where competition has developed—and here I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, for his efforts in such matters while in office—it has often led to substantial price reductions, increased choice and better value for money. In fact, a recent study by the CAA showed that the lowest fully flexible fares from London were among the lowest in Europe.

My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to answer the main thrust of the courageous, witty and accurate question from his noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis; namely, what is there that the British Government can actually do about this matter under the present regulation, apart from making rather pathetic "noises off' as far as concerns the Commission?

My Lords, I can only reiterate my assurance that we shall use our good offices here to do everything that we can.

My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the problem on the London to Munich route is an isolated incident, or are other UK low-cost airlines threatened in the same way on other routes? Alternatively, does he think that it is likely that such airlines may be so threatened?

My Lords, I am sure that we have a very robust civil aviation sector in Britain that, in many cases, is better prepared than others on the continent to defend its commercial interests. That is simply because of the commercial acumen that the sector has acquired through being in a more competitive situation. However, there have been incidents in the past where pressures have arisen that we believed might raise some concerns. We shall certainly be vigilant on behalf of Go and the other British airlines.

British Airways, for example, faces much greater competition on its domestic hubs than Lufthansa might do. BA has about 40 per cent of the slots at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, as against Lufthansa's 60 per cent at Frankfurt and Munich. It is worth noting that the Star alliance in which Lufthansa is involved has still not been investigated by the Commission, although the attempts of BA to set up alliances have been.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, I doubt your Lordships would be best pleased if I took up time literally listing all the organisations which have responded. I shall write to the noble Lord with a comprehensive list. However, 15 interest groups have responded, including the Consumers' Association, the TUC, the Law Society, the Advice Services Alliance and the Civil Courts Users' Association. Ten managers of a range of court groups have responded, as have 12 firms of solicitors and local law societies and six court user organisations and individuals. There has also been an extensive response from the judiciary. The total of 76 responses has therefore been comprehensive.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. What is the Government's response to the call for a moratorium on the proposed increases in civil court fees which has been issued jointly by the Advice Services Alliance, the Consumers' Association, the Law Society, the Legal Action Group, NACAB and the Public Law Project? Does the noble and learned Lord accept the argument put forward by these and other organisations that the proposed increases in the court fees will seriously inhibit access to justice, particularly for those whose incomes are only just over the fee exemption limit?

My Lords, I do not accept that argument. I shall be signing a new fees order, probably today. It will take effect from 25th April. It is necessary to continue to follow the policy of full cost recovery. I shall listen with great care to the responses to the consultation. I shall publish an analysis of responses by the beginning of April. When I arrive at preliminary policy conclusions, I shall consult on them. However, the government policy of full cost recovery remains.

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that it is quite wrong for access to justice to be seriously prejudiced by excessive civil court fees? Can he tell us the extent to which the number of civil actions has fallen—if it has fallen—since the principle was accepted by the Government that court fees should be sufficiently high even to cover the cost of milk for the office cat?

My Lords, let us not forget that the main deterrent to going to law is not court fees but lawyers' fees. To argue that the current level of court fees is a deterrent to litigants is rather like arguing that people are deterred from buying a new car by an increase in vehicle excise duty.

My present judgment is that there is nothing wrong with a general principle that those who can afford to do so should pay a fair fee for the use of the courts to resolve their disputes. I listened carefully to the representations that were made criticising the allocation fee in defendant claims up to £1,000, and I have recently announced the abolition of that allocation fee.

The taxpayer, however, pays in full the court fees of parties who are in receipt of a range of benefits: working families' tax credit, disabled persons' tax credit, income support and others. Thus the taxpayer pays in full, or where remissions apply in part, the court fees of those for whom payment of the full fee would constitute undue hardship. Also there are categories of litigation, such as Children Act and domestic violence applications, where the fees are set about 40 or 50 per cent beneath the true cost. We should also remember that the taxpayer pays in full from the Legal Aid Fund the court fees of those eligible for legally aided representation.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government's policy remains focused on achieving a peace settlement beneficial to all Sudanese. We have long supported the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) peace process as the main vehicle likely to achieve this. Now that we have a fully operational embassy in Khartoum we are more able to promote peace and human rights and to aid the humanitarian effort, with the Government of Sudan, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) and other factions. We believe that there is now an opportunity to press for peace and that the international community should do all that it can to pursue that goal.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that positive reply. Is she aware that I have visited areas in western Upper Nile near the oilfields and witnessed at first hand the ethnic cleansing by the Government of Sudan of the African people who live there? They have been subjected to aerial bombardment by helicopter gunships and Antonovs carrying out scorched earth policies in which thousands of homes and many schools, mosques, churches and clinics have been burned to the ground. The United States has adopted a policy of economic sanctions. If the British Government's policy of normalisation of relations does not make them minded to follow that road, will the British Government at least make sure that no British firms are involved in the exploitation of the oil which is being used by the regime to fuel its war against its own people?

My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness that Her Majesty's Government are being assiduous in trying to promote the peace process. We are aware of the concerns about which the noble Baroness speaks and are giving the matter a great deal of attention. The noble Baroness will know that the sanctions in relation to this area are complex and difficult because of the consequences that may flow therefrom for the people of Sudan. We continue to give robust advice to all businesses which seek to work in this area so that they are fully aware of the reality of what involvement means.

My Lords, mindful of the serious picture which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has painted, and of the strong representations made to me by bishops of the Episcopal Church in Sudan when I met them in Nairobi last month, will the Minister please tell us what practical steps Her Majesty's Government have taken; what practical steps are being taken; and what practical steps the Government propose to take, and with whom, to bring to an end this appalling tragedy and to forward the peace process with the utmost haste?

My Lords, I am delighted to do so, but I first commend to the House all the work that has been done by the Churches in the region which work with great energy and dedication to bring about peace for the Sudan. The UK continues to play a prominent role in pursuit of peace, especially now that we have a fully operational embassy in Khartoum. We have given new political and financial support to the newly revitalised Inter-Governmental Authority on Development—the peace process which I mentioned earlier which is allowing for a sustained and accelerated negotiation. We continue to press for extensions to a partial ceasefire, first agreed during the late Derek Fatchett's visit to the region, which has brought much relief to the people in southern Sudan. Your Lordships will remember that the previous agreement was reached in January. It will continue until April of this year.

We continue to engage with all sides. The Sudanese Government and Opposition are well aware of our views. On 8th and 9th March our ambassador to Sudan met the SPLA in Nairobi and reiterated our concerns to see the peace talks make progress, in close coordination with the head of the secretariat of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development, Mr Daniel Mboya. We are involved in newly resumed EU dialogue with the Government of Sudan, a positive but frank forum which addresses the peace process, human rights and democratisation. All our efforts are going into making sure that both sides understand that the true benefit that will flow to the Sudanese people will be the end of this long war. Your Lordships will be aware that the war has gone on for 16 years and over 1.5 million people have suffered. We want to do everything in our power to bring that suffering to an end.

My Lords, has the Minister noted the reports last week of the bombing of aid agency compounds in the south, particularly those belonging to the American NGO, Samaritans First, and the Irish organisation, Concern, in which it was alleged that two people were killed and a dozen injured? Does she not think that if the Sudanese authorities stopped bombing civilians in the south it would be one of the main contributions towards the achievement of a peace settlement? In pursuance of this objective, what additional measures could be taken to deny them the aircraft and spares coming from eastern Europe, sometimes via third countries such as Yemen? Does the Minister think that the international community has done enough to enforce the arms embargo, particularly when it is being breached by eastern European countries through third countries such as Yemen?

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we have been very assiduous in highlighting the difficulties in the region. We have given every encouragement to our international partners to be as assiduous as we are in implementing the arms embargo. We shall not cease to make those efforts. The noble Lord will know how dire is the situation. We have a window of opportunity—it is not a great one—and we need to put all our energies into ensuring that we get something viable for all the people of Sudan.

My Lords, we welcome very much the contribution from the Bishops' Benches in relation to this matter. There are many persecuted Christians in the Sudan, as there are in other countries. Does my noble friend agree that this is much more the role of the Bishops than is negotiating with the Government without other interested parties on Section 28?

My Lords, the reality is that we need energy and commitment from every single sector in order to deliver peace. I warmly welcome the energy put into this issue by the Bishops, as indeed I welcome the energy that they have addressed towards Section 28.

My Lords, in the context of the visit to the Sudan undertaken by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury some while ago, will the Minister underline the value of that visit and indicate whether she would like a further such visit to be undertaken now?

My Lords, I understand that the most reverend Primate will visit Sudan in April. We warmly welcome this initiative and wish him Godspeed.

My Lords, while I warmly welcome what has been said so far, I must return to the point raised by the right reverend Prelate. Schools and hospitals have been bombed. When a spokesman was challenged about the issue, he said that they had intended to bomb the school. As part of our normalisation efforts and discussions, to what degree do we point out specifically to the Sudanese Government how wholly unacceptable such actions are? Have we involved the Ugandan Government because, after all, Uganda is suffering from an enormous influx of refugees as a result of the conditions in Sudan? Have we turned to the international community generally to support normalisation in terms of expecting rational, civilised behaviour from the Sudanese Government?

My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the noble Baroness's questions in order. We are aware of the reports about the bombs being dropped. We have raised the matter specifically with the Government of Sudan. At this year's UN Commission on Human Rights, an EU-sponsored consensus resolution on Sudan was agreed. It calls on the Government of Sudan to stop immediately the indiscriminate bombardment of civilians and humanitarian centres—actions which run counter to the fundamental principles of human rights and humanitarian law. Our ambassador made this general point on bombing yesterday to the Sudanese Government and at the time of the bombing of the Holy Cross school in Nuba.

So far as concerns the Ugandan Government, we are aware that they have come to terms with the Sudanese, together with Ethiopia and Eritrea, and we welcome that. It is a difficult issue. As I said earlier, it needs all our efforts. We shall not hesitate to highlight these issues to the Sudanese. It needs the efforts of both north and south because, I regret to say, the honours are equally shared when it comes to unreasonableness.

My Lords, first, does the Minister agree that with regard to humanitarian aid the main problem in the Sudan has been not the amount of aid donated but ensuring that it reaches those most in need? In the light of the deteriorating situation in the Sudan, what initiatives do the Government intend to take to ensure that NGOs are allowed freely to continue their humanitarian work? As the House will be aware, some 11 foreign aid agencies were forced to suspend their operations and pull out their staff from southern Sudan on 1st March this year after refusing to accept a rebel ultimatum. Secondly, what action do the Government intend to take to build on the important agreements reached last year between the Government of the Sudan, the SPLA and the UN to secure access to certain roads and rail corridors used by aid agencies?

My Lords, I share the concerns outlined by the noble Lord. We have strongly expressed our concern in relation to the memorandum of understanding which the SPLA sought to make a number of agencies sign—the noble Lord will know that at least 11 of the major agencies refused to sign—and we have given every support to those who have condemned that as a retrogressive step. The difficulties inherent in this situation have been manifest not only in this interchange but in all our dealings with both sides. We shall continue to urge them with great vigour that the Sudanese people need peace and that failing to take advantage of the humanitarian agencies which are willing to commit themselves to the region is a retrogressive step. We shall continue to press the SPLA to address this issue.

My Lords, I wonder whether the Leader of the House can set my mind at rest about a matter which seems to me to reflect directly on the right of the House to regulate its own affairs. I caught the end of a news story this morning which seemed to indicate that the matter of a register of interests would be referred for investigation by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and his committee on standards in public life. I also understand that this matter is the subject of a Written Answer today which I have not had the privilege of seeing. Can the Leader of the House reaffirm that whether a reference is made is a matter for a decision by the whole House? As I remember it, the agreement was that before that reference is made the matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee?

Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, first, whether she believes that it is appropriate to refer to the matter by means of an announcement to the press. If it was not an announcement to the press, how did the matter come to be leaked? Secondly, does she believe that it was appropriate for the matter to be referred to by means of a Written Answer? Thirdly, has the matter been discussed at all by the Procedure Committee? Fourthly, does the noble Baroness intend to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee and then to refer any report that may result from its discussion to a decision of your Lordships' House before it is referred to the Committee on Standards in Public Life? I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the decision on how your Lordships' affairs should be addressed must rest unequivocally with your Lordships and with no one else.

My Lords, it may be helpful if I speak to one or two matters at this stage. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranborne for raising this matter. It is an issue of great importance which lies at the heart of the sovereignty of this House of Parliament. It is an issue which, I must admit, I missed. I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, in the middle of last week informing me that he was to undertake an investigation of this House. I replied almost immediately pledging the co-operation of the official Opposition in any inquiry that he makes.

My noble friend has raised a far more important issue; namely, how it is that the noble Lord, Lord Neill, is conducting the inquiry without reference to this House. Has the noble Baroness the Leader of the House had discussions with either the Clerk of the Parliaments or the Chairman of Committees in order to ensure that the proper procedures have been followed? I have it in mind that when the issue was raised previously it was dealt with by another Member of this House, the distinguished noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, who set up his inquiry on the advice of the Procedure Committee, which was approved by this House. The report was ultimately approved by the House and was put into effect.

I should also like to take up the matter of the Written Question. I understand that there is an article in today's Independent. I failed to see it; however, I did catch the tail-end of a news report on the radio this morning. I am sure that the Government had nothing to do with it. I suspect that this slipped out of the committee of inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, rather than this House. Is a written statement really the best way to proceed on this matter? Would it not have been much better for the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to come to the House to make an oral Statement so that it could be discussed and debated?

This provides me with an opportunity to ask the noble Baroness for a debate before this matter goes much further—or at least for the matter to be referred to the Chairman of Committees, who would no doubt decide which was the best committee to discuss the issue.

Will the noble Baroness also confirm—she may not know the answer now—that my noble friend Lord Cranborne is right in saying that, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Neill, reports on, it will be up to this House to decide how best to proceed?

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the points that they have raised. Like them, I was surprised by what I heard on the BBC this morning. I have not read the article in the Independent to which the noble Lord referred. I understand that it was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, at a much earlier stage in his proceedings that he was planning to examine the arrangements in this House in much the same way as he had done in relation to another place. At that stage, it was agreed that the understanding was that that was appropriate.

Like the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Neill, indicating that this was the next stage of his inquiry into the affairs of Parliament. I replied, indicating the Government's ready acquiescence in such an inquiry. The practices that the noble Lord suggests should be followed are ones which we on these Benches have for some time encouraged Members of this House to follow voluntarily.

At that stage I also suggested, in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Neill, that it was obviously appropriate—and I am sure that he had already done so—to consult the noble Lord and other Members of this House about proceeding with this matter. If some more formal procedure should be undertaken based on precedent, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has indicated, I am willing to look into that and to take the matter further in any way that is appropriate. The activities of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and his committee are completely independent of the Government. I thought that he had made the appropriate consultative arrangements with other leading Members of this House as he did with me. As I say, if the noble Viscount says that on the basis of precedent some other proceedings should be followed, I am extremely willing to look into that and to discuss it with both the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and other leading Members of the House.

My Lords, as one who ought to know more about this than I do, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to remind us whence spring the powers of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, to investigate this House. Assuming that they have been granted by this House already, it seems that the difficulty is a small one. If they have not, surely it is not appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Neill, to approach either the Government or the Opposition; it is the House as a whole that has to be approached. That can be done only by one of the committees nominated for the purpose or by a Statement and debate in the House.

My Lords, my informal understanding is that the noble Lord's original proposition is correct. If on consultation with the House authorities I am proved wrong, I shall of course make sure that that procedure is followed, as I indicated in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I have a brief query. Paragraph 1 of the report contains the reference:

"in cases where the Clerk of the Parliaments is minded to refuse to disclose information on the ground of parliamentary privilege or prejudice".

In a long and undistinguished life in public service I have managed all these years, as has everyone else, without the phrase, "is minded". What does it actually mean? Surely there is a phrase in common usage which can be employed instead. Otherwise, we are just falling into the spin doctors' trap.

My Lords, the Select Committee report informs the House that Parliament is included in the list of public bodies covered by the Freedom of Information Bill. I am not aware that the Bill in its final form has come before this House. I should very much like to examine the Freedom of Information Bill before I am prepared to consider the proposition that is reproduced at paragraph 1 of the report. The paragraph states that,

"The Bill would enable the authorised officer of each House to refuse to disclose information either on the ground of parliamentary privilege or prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs".

I venture to draw your Lordships' attention to the last part of the sentence referring to the "effective" conduct of public affairs. Public affairs can be conducted very effectively but not necessarily properly. I should have thought that it would have been far better to have inserted the words, "proper conduct of public affairs".

The second part of the paragraph states that,

"The Committee recommends that in cases where the Clerk of the Parliaments is minded to refuse to disclose information on the ground of parliamentary privilege or prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs, he should ask applicants whether they accept his decision or whether they wish him to reconsider".

I give way to no noble Lord in this House in my very great respect for the Clerk of the Parliaments, who is of enormous assistance to everyone and whose reputation, and indeed strength, is well known to us all. I should have thought, on the whole, that before we commit ourselves to approving the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, we might also refer the matter to the Committee for Privileges. The privilege of this House to receive information of one kind or another is a vital issue.

We are presently witnessing—as I have attempted to show on a number of occasions and hope to be spared to do so on a few more occasions—the progressive erosion of parliamentary powers from outside the United Kingdom. I therefore suggest that we return the report to the Select Committee on Procedure, together with as polite an indication as possible—copied to the Clerk of the Parliaments—that we should prefer this matter to be considered after detailed consideration has been given to the Freedom of Information Bill.

My Lords, at the end of the report reference is made to an examination of the Companion to the Standing Orders with a view to possible revision. Can the Chairman of Committees tell the House the object of that possible revision? Who is to conduct it, and will Members of the House be invited to comment before it is published?

My Lords, I deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe. I was not aware that the terminology to which he refers was the invention of spin doctors, whatever they may be. The term has historic connections with judicial proceedings and is frequently used by both noble and learned Lords and others of lesser standing within the justice system. Your Lordships may feel that it has impeccable origins. I do not believe that I can help the noble Lord further.

I turn next to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. He quoted the words,

"effective conduct of public affairs",

in paragraph 1 of the report and suggested that the term "proper" might more properly be substituted. The words used by the committee in its report have been taken from the Bill itself. The proposal in paragraph 1 of the report was given careful consideration by the Procedure Committee before the decision was taken. It was thought that this was a proper way to proceed.

I do not believe that I can help the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in regard to his suggestion that these matters should be deferred until the Bill has been considered. I would have thought—I am sure that I speak for the committee—that it was right for these matters to be considered by your Lordships' House at the earliest possible moment. There was no doubt within the Procedure Committee that this provision was required and that it was right and fair to all concerned. I would, therefore, commend to your Lordships this proposal along with the others in the report.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("and one as Chief Executive, a post which shall subsequently be appointed by the Council as set out in Schedule I to this Act').

My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question for clarification as regards construction. I speak to all amendments within the grouping. Do the functions and duties under Clause 1, Schedule 1 and Clause 2 apply where the local authority is not a local education authority? Moving Amendments Nos. 150 and 152 in Committee the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn made plain that they applied only where the local authority was a local education authority. I can see the logic of that. This morning I asked half a dozen noble Lords with greater knowledge of education than I possess and no one knew the answer. As a matter of principle, it would be a good idea to see where we are going at the outset. I hope that the Minister will take the matter on board.

My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 8 tabled by my noble friend Lord Tope and myself. We moved a somewhat similar amendment in Committee stressing that it was a minor proposal aimed at preventing the learning and skills council being dominated by a self-perpetuating clique. The amendment seeks to limit the normal term of the chairman's appointment to no more than two terms. It is somewhat similar to Amendment No. 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, which seeks to limit the period for which the chairman shall be appointed to not less than three years and not exceeding five years. Our amendment is slightly different. We seek to limit the normal period to two terms. It echoes the reply that we received from the Minister in Committee.

Although recognising that stability and membership build up a team spirit and strengthen bonds between members, they can also lead to conservatism and entrenched attitudes. It is always good for an organisation to be challenged from time to time. We are worried that, as drafted, Schedule 1 allows the chairman to continue indefinitely. We want to ensure that that does not occur. The Minister stressed in Committee that the general rule set out in the code of practice for public appointments was that members and chairs would normally serve for a maximum of two terms but that exceptions were allowed. That is good. However, the very fact that it is normal practice suggests that the provision should be incorporated on the face of the Bill. It is for that reason that we again bring forward an amendment in a slightly altered form.

Perhaps I may comment on the noble Baroness's six amendments. We have some sympathy with Amendment No. 1 in relation to the chief executive serving on the council. However, we accept, as the Minister stated on the last occasion, that chief executives sit on the research councils, the Higher Education Funding Council and the Further Education Funding Council, and that that provides a precedent. It is not essential.

We have less sympathy with Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. We feel that they are too prescriptive. It would be wrong for such a clear proportion of the council to be dominated by one forum or another. We have a great deal of sympathy for Amendment No. 4. It is right that local government should be represented on the learning and skills council. Amendment No. 5 is very close to our own amendment. It seeks the same end.

My Lords, I set down a marker that I am concerned about the degree of prescription in membership that Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 envisage. I am not happy about the Bill moving more and more strongly towards making provision simply about education and training for employment. If we consider the figures, 60 per cent would be predicated to education and business. My calculation is that 60 per cent of 16 is 9.6—that is 10 members, plus the chairman and chief executive. It leaves only four members to be selected from other disciplines and backgrounds.

My Lords, I am puzzled by Amendment No. 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. It simply replicates provisions already in Schedule 1. In Committee, the noble Baroness seemed to suggest—she repeated the suggestion today—that provisions in a schedule have somehow less force than provisions in a clause. That is not the case. If provisions are in a schedule they are still part of an Act when it is enacted and, therefore, have statutory power. It is simply not the case that they have less force if they are in a schedule. It means that the chief executive will be no less a creature of statute than the chairman.

I do not believe that the chief executives of, for example, the Further Education Funding Council or the Higher Education Funding Council, for which the noble Baroness's own government legislated in 1992, felt slighted because their appointments were contained within schedules to the relevant legislation. Nor, I am sure, do the chief executives of any of the regional development agencies. The Bill does exactly what earlier legislation did—legislation of the government of which the noble Baroness was a member.

As to Amendment No. 2, I fully support the wish of noble Lords that the business sector should play a major role in the LSC's strategic decision-making and planning. That is exactly why I sought to reassure noble Lords during Second Reading and in Committee that the national chair and most local chairs will have significant business or commercial experience.

I set out the reasons for those commitments to business at an earlier stage. However, it does not follow that we should incorporate such commitments on the face of the Bill. As I mentioned before, there is an obvious problem of definition with the terms "business" or "non-public sector"—I am not entirely sure how they would be defined, and what would happen in a court case if there were argument on the definition—and "national respect". I am sure that many Members of this House are the subject of great national respect, but some people might debate that.

We have discussed at great length the issues in Amendment No. 3. I made clear at Second Reading and in Committee that the Government want and are fully committed to ensuring that the business sector should play a major role in the strategic decision-making and planning that the LSC undertakes.

In response to the Committee stage debates, the CBI welcomed,

"the Government's commitment to business involvement; and the fact that the LSC will take account of the sectoral skills needs of industry".

I could repeat the assurances and commitments given in Committee, but since the CBI has noted and warmly welcomed our commitments, I hope that the noble Baroness can do the same. I do not believe that there is any need to put this provision on the face of the Bill. Nor am I aware of pressure from elsewhere that it should be on the face of the Bill.

Turning to Amendment No. 4, I accept that the noble Baroness now seeks to secure a quota of 20 per cent rather than 25 per cent, thereby allowing more representation of other groups. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that if we have too many percentage quotas on the face of the Bill, the situation will become inflexible. It could lead to difficulties when we have to take into account other people and bodies which must be represented on the learning and skills council.

I reassure noble Lords once again that local authorities will have a major role in the new arrangements. As we shall hear later, we are looking to strengthen the framework for consulting local authorities on local LSC plans. They will be central partners not only in securing and providing learning opportunities in schools and through adult and community learning, but also as organisations which can provide vision and leadership for local communities. I believe that they have an important role.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked about definitions. I am not sure about the relevance of that to these clauses, but wherever the Bill specifies "local education authority", it refers only to local education authorities. Where it refers to "local authorities", it can include LEAs as well as district councils. I hope that that answers his question.

As I said previously, if a suitable individual with current local government experience were appointed to the council, that would serve to strengthen the links with the LGA. However, it would be wrong to specify the number or to guarantee a quota of places for the LGA and its representatives. In any case, we do not want members of the council to be delegates or nominees of any particular organisation. Members of the council, wherever they come from, should serve the interest of the council as a whole,

I accept the principle behind Amendment No. 5, which is that the period of the term of office of the chairman will be between three and five years. That is in line with guidance from the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, which we have made a public commitment to follow. But setting that in stone in the legislation would make no allowance for exceptional circumstances in which, for some reason, we may need to appoint a chairman for a different period of time. For instance, the principle would not allow the short-term appointment of a chairman to see through a period of change before a longer-term appointment could be made. We need to retain flexibility in these matters.

As regards Amendment No. 6, I am disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has felt the need to return to the issue. In Committee, I gave the noble Baroness a full explanation of the reason why Clause 1(3) was so drafted. By way of reply, the noble Baroness launched into what I thought was an unnecessary attack on parliamentary counsel, accusing them of pedantry. The noble Baroness is insisting that Clause 1(3) be amended so that the indefinite article "a" is replaced by the adjective "each". Without wishing to be pedantic myself, I simply repeat that the legal effect of the amendment would be precisely zero. That is because under Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978,

"unless the contrary intention appears … words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular".

Therefore, the effect of Section 6 of the Interpretation Act is that, when Clause 1(3) sets out to what the Secretary of State must have regard in appointing "a" member, it applies to his appointment of all members. I hope that with that assurance, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not feel the need to press her amendment.

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for giving way. She said that she had answered my question. Perhaps before she leaves the matter I may respectfully say that she did not. The answer to my question is either "yes", "no" or "do not know". I do not want to press the noble Baroness now, but will she be good enough to read Hansard and answer my question, which is specifically related to Clause 1, Schedule 1 and Clause 2? That is all I ask.

My Lords, yes, I shall be happy to do that.

Perhaps I may return to the effect of Section 6 of the Interpretation Act. When Clause 1(3) sets out to what the Secretary of State must have regard in appointing "a" member, it applies to his appointment of all members.

Amendment No. 8, which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, seeks to limit the number of terms which a member of the LSC may serve. With regard to the tenure of members, the Government have stated that they will adhere to the guidelines set out in the code of practice for public appointments. The last thing that they would want to see is people permanently in such jobs. Of course there must be fresh blood and limits to the length of time that chairmen and others may serve, but the code of practice for public appointments states that chairs and members should normally serve for a maximum of two terms.

However, I am sure that the noble Baroness will appreciate that there may be exceptional circumstances in which a member's final term may need to be extended. That might happen, for example, when a degree of stability is needed due to a large number of members simultaneously reaching the end of their period of office, or a large number of resignations taking place for some reason. The guidance allows for such exceptional circumstances. However, setting the provision in legislation raises difficult questions of interpretation; for instance, what "normally" means and so forth. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Sharp, will accept our clear and repeatedly expressed intentions on those issues of appointment and that we shall be bound by the relevant guidance. I hope that with those assurances they will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. She totally missed the point as regards the first amendment. It asks why it has been thought necessary to provide in Clause 1 that the council shall include a chairman and not a chief executive and why it has been thought fit to provide in the schedule that it shall include a chief executive and not a chairman? Furthermore, the schedule includes references to subsequent appointments.

One of the weakest defensive arguments ever to be used by a Minister—I am culpable and probably used it myself—is to say, "It has always been done like this and we shall continue with it". I am afraid that that is not an answer.

As regards the noble Baroness's disparaging comments about me using the words "commands national respect", I took them verbatim from col. 539 of Hansard. They were the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on 8th February and I thought that if they were good enough for him, they were good enough for me and for the consideration of this House.

I understand what the noble Baroness said about the term of office not being set out on the face of the Bill. It is helpful to have the Government's explanation on the record. However, will reference be made to the term of office in any job advertisement or job description for the post?

As regards the definite article, yes, we are becoming a little pedantic, but so often lay people must make sense of legalese. I make no apologies for being slightly critical of counsel, who write for counsel readers. The truth is that when the law is interpreted, it must have a practical meaning to those who implement it. However, as the noble Baroness said, although the indefinite article subsumes the plural, what happens when it is meant to mean only the singular? What happens when the indefinite article is meant to include the plural? What, then, does "council" suggest? There are occasions in legislation when "a" is used to mean a specific person, one thing or one aspect of a Bill. Therefore, the indefinite article becomes appropriate. However, to say that it always includes the plural is, frankly, not right.

I am not entirely happy with the answers. As I said, no reason has been given as to why the chairman and chief executive have been treated differently. It is possible that a person who reads Clause 1 will understand that a council will have 12 to 16 members, one of whom will be a chairman, and that that will be the only prescribed post. It is not until one reads almost to the end of the Bill that one finds, hidden away in a schedule, that another post of the council is prescribed to be held by the chief executive. I believe that that is unfortunate. They should either both be on the face of the Bill in Clause 1 or both in the schedule together so that no one is left, as I am, wondering why they should be treated differently, even if that has been the case in the past. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 3:

moved Amendment No. 7:

My Lords, I welcome Amendments Nos. 55 and 100 most enthusiastically. I was extremely pleased when the Minister said in Committee that she hoped to return with an amendment at a later stage. I admit that when it had to fit in with issues of race and sex equality as well, I wondered whether the amendments would appear in time for Third Reading. But the amendments are here and they have encompassed more than my original proposed amendment and it is only Report stage. Therefore, I thank the Minister and her officials and congratulate them on having accomplished that. It is excellent that the amendments address race and sex equality as well as the position of disabled learners and that they require the councils to report on their arrangements to promote that equality.

I have not yet heard what the Minister has to say but I believe that she will stress that although the duty relates to disabled learners as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act, in fact it must be taken in the context of Clause 13, with the wider definition of learning difficulties, which is extremely important. However, I shall wait to see what she says about that.

With regard to the amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I understand absolutely what he is saying. I agree that we should offer equality of opportunity in relation to sexual orientation, religion and age. As the Minister probably cannot accept the amendment, I wonder whether some encouraging words and perhaps some mention in guidance will satisfy him for the moment. I feel a bit of a wimp saying that because I remember in the days before the DDA my irritation at having to be content with a line in Hansard, whereas provisions relating to sex and race discrimination were included in the Bill. However, having done my wimpish bit, I return to Amendments No. 55 and 100, to which I give three hurrays.

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend on the Front Bench come to reply, will they clarify what they mean by "persons of religion"; I believe that that, or something similar, is the term used? I wonder whether they would include people who do not have a religious belief. On the surface, it seems a contradiction to discuss religion and non-religion in the same breath. I believe that it is what has come to be called in modern parlance a "catch-22 situation". In other words, people who do not have a religious view find it impossible to put forward their point of view.

I raise the point because for some time now opinion polls have shown that between 25 and 30 per cent of people do not hold a religious point of view. That percentage is increasing. That is a substantial minority. I believe that I am right in saying—my noble friend on the Front Bench will confirm this—that on the permanent committee on religious education there is at least one person who is either an atheist, humanist, agnostic or does not have any religious belief. It seems to me that in modern times that factor should be considered. These amendments lend themselves greatly to the point I am making. I hope that some assistance and clarification will be provided at the end of the debate.

My Lords, I appreciate the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand. Of course, it is difficult to have a negative idea without a positive idea. The noble Lord's tight religious education in a state school in Durham is what has produced his agnosticism. One cannot teach non-religion without teaching religion. In other words, we all agree that people should be aware of their religious background, even if they reject it. I wonder whether the noble Lord is asking Her Majesty's Government to ask schools to teach non-religion, particularly to the 16 to 18 age group. I am rather puzzled, because one gets into something of a morass there.

My Lords, I am unhappy about the amendments. The reason is not because I do not believe in equality of opportunity, which I understand to mean fairness to the underdog, but because the amendments limit equality of opportunity only to certain categories of people. I need not go into detail, but the Minister's amendment is limited only to racial groups, women and the disabled. Why should it be that equality of opportunity is limited only to those with the loudest voice? Plenty of other groups in our society are desperately underprivileged and are entitled to the same level of equal opportunity. If Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, were to be accepted, I should be minded to table an amendment at Third Reading to remove the words,

"in relation to race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation or religion",

because the provision reads perfectly well without them. It would then state:

"In appointing a member the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to reflect the diversity of the population as a whole and to include those with an understanding of or an interest in achieving social inclusion and equality of opportunity".

I cannot see why other amendments in this group should not be amended in the same way.

My Lords, I support Amendment No. 55. Naturally, I am delighted that it is set alongside the duty to have regard to the needs of all students with learning difficulties or disabilities, reinforcing the need to pursue actively the equalisation of opportunity between disabled and non-disabled learners. That duty is certainly a cause for optimism; optimism that the council will start off with the right intentions and that the councils will deliver for all learners at risk of exclusion or discrimination. The clause sends a clear message from government of their expectations. It is a message which I fully support.

My Lords, I should like to begin with government Amendments Nos. 55 and 100 before I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for their support for the amendments.

We want the LSC and the CETW to ensure that learning opportunities of high quality are available to meet the needs of all learners across the whole range of abilities and aptitudes. In addition, it will be critical that the councils are able to combat the disadvantages that some learners and potential learners genuinely face. As new bodies, we want the LSC and the council in Wales to show the way to all public organisations in building equality of opportunity into all their policies, programmes and actions.

In December, we set out in the LSC prospectus what that would mean in practice. We expect the LSC to draw up an equal opportunities strategy including targets and performance indicators to tackle both under-representation and under-achievement. Vital to that strategy will be the principle that policies and funding take account of the different characteristics of learners, such as race, gender and disability. The LSC will benchmark the equal opportunities performance of each of the local councils. It will encourage all providers to take positive steps to widen participation and will promote equal opportunities through marketing its activities. We are already working closely with the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission to prepare for what I am sure noble Lords will agree is a challenging agenda. We expect the LSC to continue the close liaison that we are now establishing.

Against the background of that firm commitment to measures to promote equality of opportunity, I was keen to respond quickly and positively to the important amendments debated in Committee on provisions for disabled people. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said about what was perhaps an unfortunate omission. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, also proposed that the LSC should have a duty in respect of the promotion of equality for disabled learners. Clause 13 already makes specific provision for the wider group of people defined as those with learning difficulties. We shall also be bringing forward new rights to prevent discrimination against disabled learners in our forthcoming Bill addressing disability in education. However, I said that I would consider further whether an additional duty would be helpful in that area.

As I am sure noble Lords are aware, the Government are committed to ensuring that all public bodies take a lead in promoting equal opportunities. We announced last November that we would place that obligation in legislation as soon as parliamentary time permitted. Our aim is to take a consistent approach across all public bodies. It would have been preferable to wait for a suitable legislative vehicle where the same duty could have been applied to all public bodies. However, as noble Lords know, we shall be introducing a duty in respect of race equality alone in the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill and I appreciate the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Those arguments, together with the fact that the learning and skills council is a new body, mean that a duty to promote equality is desirable at this stage.

On reflection, therefore, we decided that it would better represent the broad thrust of government policy for equality in public bodies to go further than the noble Baroness's amendment and, through government Amendments Nos. 55 and 100, to place the councils under a duty in respect of race and gender as well as disability. We have also gone further than the noble Baroness's amendment in requiring the LSC and the CETW to provide annual reports giving details not only of what they have done to promote equal opportunities in the past year, but also what effect those measures have had and the steps which the councils intend to take in the following year. That is an important way of monitoring and publicising the work and effectiveness of the LSC and the CETW in this important area.

There is one important point which I should make clear about the work of the LSC and CETW for people with disabilities. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, shares with me the view that, while it is sensible to address equality provisions towards the group of people who are defined as "disabled" under the Disability Discrimination Act, in the sphere of education law we must take account of the needs of the wider group of people who have difficulty in getting access to education. These are defined in the Bill, as they are in the current Further and Higher Education Act, as persons with learning difficulties. The full effect of the duty of the LSC to address the needs of people with disabilities is seen only when Clause 13 and this new Clause 14 are taken together. I hope and believe that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords will welcome this approach.

I turn to Amendments Nos. 56 and 101. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, wishes to extend the provisions of the duty of equality to other groups who might experience barriers in securing learning opportunities. The LSC prospectus already makes clear that the LSC will have a comprehensive approach to the needs of all learners. Perhaps I may give a few more examples. We shall require the LSC to have a wide-ranging equal opportunities strategy and action plan. We will want the LSC to use performance indicators to set targets to tackle under-representation and under achievement by any group; to mainstream equal opportunities in all its policies and programmes; to encourage all providers to take positive steps to widen participation and to engage in learning those groups which are currently under-represented (the kind of groups to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred); to challenge discrimination and stereotyping; and to monitor and evaluate performance and disseminate examples of good practice.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that an equal opportunities strategy cannot be confined to issues of gender, race and disability. However, the Government's approach to equality in legislation, as set out in the Statement made in November by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, recognised that extending legal provisions beyond the current areas of race, sex and disability raises a number of questions which need further thought and research. To give one example, while the LSC will certainly be addressing the needs of older learners, it is a clear provision in the Bill that priority must be given to 16 to 19 year-old learners. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that we need to think through these issues and, in the light of the assurances about what we expect the LSC to do in practice, will not press his amendments.

I turn to Amendment No. 66. Once again I recognise the concern of the noble Lord that the duties should apply to local LSCs as much as to the national LSC. I share the view that local councils should be right at the forefront in ensuring that we make a real difference in removing barriers to disadvantaged groups. As I mentioned earlier, the LSC will benchmark the performance of the local councils.

However, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary to achieve the result that both the noble Lord and I want to achieve. Local councils are part of the single unitary body which is the LSC. When the local councils perform functions delegated by the national council, they will be subject to the same duty to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity. The LSC prospectus makes clear that action plans will be required at local as well as national level. With that reassurance in mind, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will not feel the need to press the amendment.

As regards Amendment No. 7, I repeat that appointments will be carried out in accordance with the guidance of the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. What is significant in appointments to the council is a person's ability to do the job and do it well over the period of appointment. We shall strive to achieve a balanced council and one which reflects the diversity of the population, which is, I recognise, the purpose behind the amendment. However, I do not accept that that objective will be further supported by setting it in this legislation.

We have set out unequivocally in the LSC prospectus that we shall expect local and national councils to include people who understand the needs of those who face discrimination, to challenge such discrimination, and to promote equality of opportunity. We are also taking active steps to encourage applications from traditionally underrepresented groups, such as ethnic minorities, and are working with the CRE on that. The amendment we are introducing to place duties on the LSC in respect of equal opportunities reinforces our commitment to making progress in these areas on the face of the Bill.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for raising the issue of equality of opportunity in relation to inspection. I have no difficulty with the principle that inspection should encompass judgments on equal opportunities. As regards, for example, inspecting provision for students with disabilities, I would expect inspectors to form and report a view about whether equality of opportunity was being taken account of properly.

Furthermore, I have no doubt that the adult learning inspectorate, and indeed Ofsted, will evaluate the extent to which equal opportunities are promoted. This is territory which I think the common inspection framework should address. I would expect that in making their judgments, inspectors will consider, for example, whether the provider promotes access for disabled students; whether there are up-to-date equal opportunity and disability policies; whether selection procedures for students guarantee equality of opportunity; and whether there is proper regard for protection against discrimination and harassment, and so forth. All those judgments should be part and parcel of any inspection. In those respects I think that the noble Lord and I are in full agreement.

But I believe that the best place for setting out those issues is not on the face of the Bill but in the common inspection framework. That will encompass many other highly desirable features of a good and comprehensive approach to inspection such as, for example, effective leadership and management or the standards of internal quality assurance and the guidance and support for learners. Once again, however, I repeat that I share the sentiments of the noble Lord, even if I take a different view about how best to give them expression.

The government amendments are a mark of our firm commitment to equal opportunities and our desire that the LSC and the Welsh council place the principles at the forefront of their work. I understand the reasoning behind the further additions and amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and I am sympathetic to the objectives. However, as I made clear in my opening remarks, I do not believe they are necessary to achieve the action we all want to undertake. I hope that the House will accept the amendments standing in my name and that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does she agree that the admirable principles of equal opportunities of a general nature and the comprehensive approach which she enunciated of challenging discrimination and stereotyping wherever it is found are weakened by Amendment No. 55 which refers specifically to three particular groups which will be protected by this legislation? When a particular group is mentioned in legislation, the rights of and opportunities for all the other groups who may fall into the general class are immediately weakened. I believe it is wrong to do that in connection with only three groups of disadvantaged people.

No, my Lords, I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Lord. I believe it is right to state categorically that we should not be discriminating against girls or women, ethnic minorities, disabled people or young people with a learning disability. It is perfectly appropriate to specify that because these groups have suffered from discrimination in many different areas of public life. It is right that we should make clear that we expect the LSC to work hard to ensure that that does not happen.

My Lords, I would like the Minister—

My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness to give way for a moment. I am sorry to interrupt but we are on Report. Of course, the noble Baroness is entitled to ask questions to elucidate something the Minister said in her reply, but she cannot make a speech.

My Lords, the question I wish to ask the Minister is whether, under the category of people with learning difficulties, she would include those who have emotional and behavioural difficulties and who, in the light of their past careers, might find it very difficult to be taken seriously by the council. If such people are included, then I shall be very happy to have them mentioned in a category in her amendment.

My Lords, I can confirm that they are included.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I begin with the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington. I understand very well the point that he makes. My understanding is that this clause is about discrimination and not about teaching as such. I do not want to be drawn into a debate as to whether it is possible or desirable to teach non-religion. My understanding is that that would cover those who did not profess to have a religion, although if the wording needs to be tightened I would not be worried about that. It is the principle that I am trying to convey. I believe that on this issue the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, and I are at one.

I have no doubt also that the Minister and I are at one over what we want to achieve. I hope that I made that clear, but perhaps I may do so again. I welcome the Minister's two amendments although my feeling is that they do not go far enough. I have some sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, who described herself as a wimp. I would not have been so rude in that regard, but she expressed exactly my concern that we are specifying three important areas of discrimination and in doing so drawing attention to European Union definitions that are not mentioned. By referring to three we are drawing attention to the fact that we are not referring to another three.

In reply the Minister made reference to what is a new body, the importance of establishing it as such, and being at the cutting edge. Not so long ago I spent many happy hours here setting up another new body, the Greater London Authority. We eventually included a provision in what is now an Act, specifically giving the new authority a duty in all these areas of discrimination. To have done that for one new body and now quite deliberately leaving it out for another is a form of discrimination itself. It is a mistake.

I do not doubt the Minister's belief that the matter is covered in the prospectus and that there will be a strong duty on the national council. One could argue there is no need to make any reference in the Bill. But we are, and we have welcomed it. I feel quite strongly that if we are to make a reference, it should be a comprehensive one—not a partial reference, as it is now. It is almost a retrograde step which I very much regret.

Similarly, we are not imposing any duty on the local councils because they will be benchmarked by the national council which will require them to deliver and so forth. That argument could be used for not having the government amendments as regards the national council. If it is a priority for the local councils, as the Minister and I believe, then that too should be on the face of the Bill, not least because its omission, having put the onus on the national council, in a sense has a reverse effect.

In many ways the proviso is possibly more important on a local council at local level where in some cases it is business dominated and the matter is not necessarily at the top of the agenda. I have some regret about not pressing the amendment. I hope that the Minister will think further. I welcome the step that has been taken today, but I urge the Government to turn it into a bigger stride and to give a more wholehearted and all-embracing commitment to equality of opportunity before the Bill is finally enacted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 56. line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (3).

My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. We agreed that we should return to these issues today on Report. Paragraph 5(2) of the schedule, as the noble Baroness says, provides that the terms and conditions (including pay) on which the council employs staff are for the council itself to determine but the Secretary of State must approve the council's determination. As the noble Baroness stated in clear terms, her Amendment No. 9 removes this provision.

The LSC will be a large, non-departmental public body within the public sector employing significant numbers of staff. It is a standard provision for such NDPBs that the Secretary of State should be able to approve their proposed terms and conditions to ensure that public sector employment policies are observed. By way of example, perhaps I may refer the noble Baroness to Schedule 1 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, both of which are fairly recent examples under successive governments of how this problem has been approached. We do not believe that we should take a different attitude in this Bill.

Amendment No. 10 refers to the part of Schedule 1 which deals with members' interests. Under this provision, a member of the national LSC cannot take part in discussions or decisions of the national council where that member has disclosed an interest in the outcome. The noble Baroness asked what the word "disability" means in that context. It really means disclosing an interest.

The intention of sub-paragraphs (6) to (8) is to allow the Secretary of State to remove that bar where appropriate. If the amendment were passed, it would no longer be possible for the Secretary of State to intervene. It is of course right that LSC members with an interest should disclose that interest when such matters are discussed and should normally be barred from taking part in relevant deliberations and decisions in which they have an interest. We believe that an unqualified application of these provisions could lead to perverse consequences. I shall give one hypothetical example. If a principal of a further education college who was on the national council was unable to take part in general debates on priorities for resource allocation because the outcome would inevitably have some impact on his or her college, we do not think it would be in the public interest for that principal necessarily not to take part in the discussions on that broad topic. We believe that there should be a provision for the Secretary of State to lift such a bar on an individual member when he judges that it is sensible. This is standard provision in legislation which establishes NDPBs. I refer to Schedule 2 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. We believe that it is right that this power should be with the Secretary of State rather than the council in order to ensure that such decisions are made in a detached and considered way.

The noble Baroness's third amendment would remove the entitlement of the Secretary of State to have a representative present at any meeting of the council and take part in any deliberations at these meetings. It would make the representative's attendance subject to the approval of the council.

The noble Baroness mentioned that she had lost a battle on this matter in the recent past. Perhaps I may say in passing that I do not suppose that she lost many battles of this type when she was in government. However, we cannot agree with her on this occasion. No doubt, that skirmish was lost because it was then, and still is, common practice for the sponsoring department to send a representative to meetings of its sponsored non-departmental public body. The provision within paragraph 9(1) of the schedule—which bars the Secretary of State's representative from taking part in the decisions of the council at these meetings, which is again a standard bar—is an important restriction.

However, I say to the noble Baroness that we believe it right that the representative should be there to inform and observe. I repeat what has been often said: the LSC will be responsible for spending a huge amount of public money—£6 billion. It will be important that the relationship between the council, the department and the Secretary of State is a close one. We believe that an arrangement whereby the Secretary of State's observer attends meetings but does not take part in decisions strikes about the right balance.

I hope I have explained to some extent the thinking behind the way in which the Bill appears, and that the noble Baroness will not press these amendments.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has responded to these amendments. However, I simply do not accept the explanation. I believe that the law is the law. The ways in which the council will have to behave towards its staff are already set out in endless statutes. Therefore, the idea that it could do something quite outside the law seems to me to be extraordinary. It has to live within budgets. It already has a direction. It comes from the Secretary of State to the council. The idea that there should be a determination under this paragraph for each member of staff does seem to me to be excessive. It is also excessive intrusion in the day-to-day work of the council, which will be employing people and managing employees all the time.

I accept the Minister's explanation in respect of disability, but it is such a pity that we cannot use the opportunity to engage in plain English. It seems to me that the noble Lord's explanation was that a disability could be explained by removing a bar to speaking and/or voting on an issue. I think that is what it actually meant—that it is possible for the Secretary of State to lift that bar and, as set out in paragraph 8, nothing would preclude a member from then taking part and voting on an issue where that has happened.

The Minister's response to my Amendment No. 11 only serves to feed our concerns about the incredible influence that the Department for Education and Employment, and the Secretary of State personally, will have on the way in which the council works. I know from experience that there will be an almost permanent presence on these councils, reforming, informing and observing. "Informing" and "observing" were the two words used by the noble Lord. I believe that, once set up with a proper remit, and with all the other statutes that come into play in terms of how they behave, they should be left to get on with it. However, those people, not just inside this Chamber but outside as well, who are very concerned about the superstructure of bureaucracy headed by the Department for Education and Employment will not be helped by the Government's defence of this part of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 57, line 5, leave out sub-paragraphs (6) and (7).

moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 1, line 21, after first ("education") insert ("and training").

My Lords, I do not want to bring too much ideology into this debate. I agree with the noble Baroness. However, we quote Germany so easily. What is conveniently forgotten is that in Germany there are separate channels for vocational and academic education, which has been the nature of the success of German education—and the French, the Dutch and the Austrian. I have said this in this House often before: altering words on a Bill will not alter the fundamental structural problem of English education; that is, that the only way we felt we could make vocational training acceptable was to make it parasitic on academic. It has failed; it will fail; and the Germans have it right. I am glad the noble Baroness said that, but she is not prepared to go the whole mile.

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, on the skilful way in which these comprehensive amendments to Clauses 2 and 3 have been drafted. She will forgive me saying that practice is clearly making perfect.

We fully accept the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness in relation to the fragmentation of present arrangements for post-16 education and training, and agree that the LSC must view them, to use her expression, in a "holistic" and balanced way. The new arrangements must not simply perpetuate the artificial distinction and separate systems of the past. Her concern that the form in which the duties of the council are expressed may imply a continuation of such divisions is also appreciated. There is nothing between us on the policy; rather on the way in which it is expressed.

The noble Baroness made it clear that she would like to see on the face of the Bill an explicit reference in the duties of the LSC to those aspects of education and training which are concerned with broadening the mind, which Amendment No. 29 addresses. Again, I do not believe that there is anything between us on the policy here, and I share her aspirations. But we believe that this amendment too is unnecessary.

Post-16 education in this Bill encompasses secondary education for persons over the age of 16 and further education. Both secondary and further education are defined in Section 2 of the Education Act 1996. In particular, as has already been mentioned when we previously considered this amendment in Committee, the amendment is unnecessary because the exact words the noble Baroness seeks to apply to the meaning of "education" in this Bill already appear on the statute book in Section 2 of that Act.

I am sorry that this is a rather legalistic response, but the point being made by the noble Baroness essentially involves the legal phrasing of the Bill. In those circumstances, I hope that she will understand that a response which cites legal definitions is appropriate in the circumstances.

In Committee and today the noble Baroness accepted that the Government's intentions are good, but was concerned that a future government may seek to interpret the law differently. I must point out that the meaning of the law does not change at elections. We inherited the previous government's arrangements for post-16 education and found them lacking; but we were bound to work within that framework until we brought forward the present Bill which we consider to be a much better and more coherent approach to post-16 education and training. We are satisfied that the Bill as drafted does not imply the possibility of differential and fragmented approaches to education and training. The LSC's duties must be viewed as a whole. It does not have the discretion to choose to implement some bits and ignore other parts. None of the provisions in Clauses 2 and 3 is an optional extra.

I repeat the assurance already given that the provisions as currently drafted do not imply any such division in the first place. Each phrase carries equal weight in its current form. No fragmentation of approach is implied or required by the way the words are organised on the page. As drafted, the existing provisions achieve what we all want to see, and therefore the proposed amendments are unnecessary. I hope that with those assurances (perhaps repeated more times than they should have been), the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his congratulations on my drafting skills. He is right that practice helps and I am learning by doing on these occasions.

Nevertheless, I am disappointed that the Government do not see fit to accept my amendments. I am glad that they accept them in spirit; but we knew that from the words spoken in Committee. The Minister is right that we on these Benches welcome the integrated coherent purpose of the reforms incorporated in the Bill. However, I cannot see why, if that is the intention, it cannot be expressed on the face of the Bill. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 1, line 23, at end insert ("or of persons who are above the compulsory school age but have not attained the age of 25 and who did not acquire a level 2 qualification in the year in which they attained the age of 16").

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 14 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tope. Our reasons for tabling the amendment are similar to those cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, when she moved her Amendment No. 13. We are conscious of many young people aged over 19 who, for one reason or another, have failed to make the best use of the education system before that age and whose needs justify an entitlement to "proper" facilities after that age.

In her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, refers to those who have not acquired a level 2 qualification in the year in which they attain the age of 16. We on these Benches live in hope that the Government will implement the recommendations of the Kennedy report and those made in the third report of the National Skills Task Force. That report suggested that there should be an entitlement to education and training up to level 3 rather than level 2, which is currently enjoyed by those under the age of 19, and that this entitlement should be extended up to the age of 25.

When we debated this issue in Committee, the Minister made it clear that, for the present, priority lay with making good the entitlement for the 16 to 19 year-old cohort, in particular taking steps to bring back into the fold those who had dropped out of education and were neither employed nor currently receiving either education or training. We agree with this priority, but we are also of the opinion that many of these—and indeed others in the 16 to 19 year-old cohort—do not know what they want to do with their lives and resist the idea of education or training, only to regret those decisions when they are a little older. By then they may have had to face the responsibilities of parenthood and homemaking. It is vital that provision should be made for those late returners. They should be offered the opportunity to equip themselves with recognised skills and qualifications.

Amendment No. 14 has been drafted flexibly so as to offer two advantages. First, immediately, it allows for discretion so that in deserving cases the Secretary of State can extend the entitlement to those aged over 19. Secondly, later, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer feels perhaps a little more generous than he does at the moment, it would allow that entitlement to be extended to those up to the age of 25.

My Lords, it is very important to include a measure of flexibility in this area. The age of 19 is often quite a turning point for people with severe learning difficulties and sometimes it is inappropriate to cut off their educational opportunities at that age. For myself, I would not want to tie such extra provision for education to further qualifications because for people with severe learning difficulties education is good in itself, even if it does not lead to further qualifications. For that reason, I strongly support Amendment No. 14, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.

My Lords, these amendments would extend to other age groups the entitlement to education and training that Clause 2 provides for young people. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has previously made what I genuinely think is a very good point about the needs of people who may have missed out in their school years and I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, reinforced that point. I do not think that there is much between us here in what we want for such people and I share the concerns of both noble Baronesses.

In discharging its duties for the older age group, the LSC must—I repeat the word "must"—ensure that the education and training provided for them is suitable to their requirements. The flexibility to do that is already in place. The requirements of a person with low levels of previous achievement will, of course, be very different from the requirements of those who are already well qualified. It is precisely with that in mind that the consultation we are conducting at the moment on future funding arrangements suggests moving beyond current systems. These might be broadly characterised as dividing payments for provision into entry, retention and achievement. We have suggested building in a fourth element, payment for disadvantage. This would not be restricted to a particular age group, unlike the effect of either of these amendments. Indeed, I do not believe that it should be. There are people over the age of 25 who also need help in coming back into either full-time or part-time education.

However, I repeat a key point from our previous debate on this issue: to single out the needs of one specified group of adults and to give them priority over other adults in this way would be wrong. I believe that it would constrain the LSC and reduce the element of flexibility for which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has asked. It would restrict the council's ability to make judgments about what may be the equally and possibly more pressing needs of some other adults.

I am also bound to point out again that some adults with special needs or disabilities could actually be disadvantaged by Amendment No. 13. Let us take the example of a disabled adult of any age who has attained a level 2 qualification. The effect of the amendment would mean that that person would be cut out. The LSC would be required to give greater priority to a person aged under 25 without a disability who had not achieved a level 2 qualification. I am not sure that that is what we want to achieve. I believe that this indicates some of the difficult decisions that will need to be taken. Placing such requirements on the LSC may have some consequences that none of us intended.

Although Amendment No. 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, takes a slightly different approach to Amendment No. 13, it would also have the effect of giving priority to one group of adults over another on the basis of age rather than their actual requirements. I believe that what we need here is a less restrictive approach which would allow the LSC to exercise its judgment and its discretion about the allocation of resources—

My Lords, I should point out to the Minister that the amendment as drafted does not give priority to any particular group of adults. It has been deliberately left open to be determined by the Secretary of State.

My Lords, I accept that Amendment No. 14 has built into it a determination by the Secretary of State. However, I should like to return to the point that placing requirements on the LSC would be an unfortunate move. I believe that we need a rather less restrictive approach which would allow it to exercise its own judgment and discretion. I hope that, in view of this, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not press her amendment.

My Lords, before I decide what to do with Amendment No. 13, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to answer one question. The amendment that follows these amendments—Amendment No. 15—goes some way to answering the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness. If my amendment were to be accepted, the noble Baroness spoke of a person aged between 19 and 25 without a learning disability then taking precedence over someone with a disability aged over 25. Amendment No. 15 narrows the group of people for whom proper provision should be made, as opposed to reasonable provision. Can the noble Baroness give the House an indication of whether she will be able to accept that amendment? Logic would say that Amendment No. 15 should be more acceptable than my amendment.

My Lords, perhaps it would be easier to wait until we reach the next group of amendments. However, although I am sympathetic to what is being proposed in Amendment No. 15, I am afraid that I am going to have to resist it for reasons that I shall give in due course.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for being so straightforward in her answer to my question. In her opening remarks in response to Amendment No. 13, the noble Baroness said—I made a note of her words—that the LSC "must" provide education and training to meet the requirements of those who have not achieved level 2.

However, that is not what it says in the Bill. Clause 2(1) states that,

"The Council must secure the provision of proper facilities",

and goes on to refer to young people up to the age of 19. But there is a very different emphasis in Clause 3. Subsection (1) states that the council must provide "reasonable facilities" and subsection (2) says:

"Facilities are reasonable if (taking account of the Council's resources) … the Council can reasonably he expected to secure their provision".

So there is already a very serious constraint on who will receive "proper facilities" and who will receive "reasonable facilities" in the opinion of the council. There is a wholly legal defence for the council to say, "We simply can't afford it". It is just a matter of trying to find a way to put some focus on those young people, with or without learning disabilities, who, for one reason or another, have not achieved level 2 qualifications.

There are many people who must be considered personally culpable for not achieving—for example, not working hard enough, not attending well and truanting from school—and there is perhaps less sympathy for them. But even now the Government still say that we cannot as a society stand back and let those people become problematic and, of course, more costly to the community. However, there is another group of people involved. I have in mind those who, for many reasons well beyond their control, have not achieved level 2 qualifications. I have already mentioned long periods of illness, dislocation because of moving from one part of the country to another and even moving from one country to another. There are also those people described in Amendment No. 15, which refers to those with genuine disabilities.

It seems to me that the Government should find a way to give some flexibility to enable proper provision to be extended to a group of people who will be determined by a form of words on the face of the Bill, or, using the words of the noble Baroness, determined by the Secretary of State. In light of the fact that the Minister is not prepared to accept my amendment or Amendment No. 15, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

moved Amendment No. 15:

My Lords, I wish to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Those of us who are involved in one way or another with the provision of education for young people from the ages of 16 to 19 who have learning difficulties or disabilities—I think that your Lordships will be aware that I am the president of a charity which maintains a successful college for blind and visually impaired students—will know that students of this age group who have learning difficulties or disabilities travel at their own speed. By the age of 19 some will have acquired skills, or even possibly the level of certificated attainment; others will not, not through any fault of not trying but as a result of their learning difficulties. Yet the axe falls at 19 and they have to go. They may not even be able to acquire a job at that stage. I do not believe that that axe should fall.

I emphasise the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, made; namely, that we are not talking about masses and masses of people. This is not a matter over which the Treasury need have nightmares. We are talking about a relatively small number of people who are, nevertheless, important as individuals. They should not be thrust out of colleges and told that it has all come to an end. I believe that the Government should move on this issue. I have had sight of a letter which the noble Baroness has sent to the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Clearly the Government are moving in this area. We shall obviously ask for a little more, but, first, I should thank the Minister for what she has done. When you ask for more, you should begin by giving thanks for-what you have already received. That is an error that Oliver Twist made; not that the overseer of the Poor House would have changed his attitude in that particular case. I thank the Minister as she has made significant improvements in recognition of the problems that disabled students face, particularly as regards amendments to Clause 113.

I suspect that the noble Baroness will suggest in her letter of reply—I hope that she does not mind my saying so—that one way forward would be to make an assessment of the 19 to 25 year-old students I am discussing. That is certainly a step forward, but only a modest one. An assessment does not constitute an entitlement. It is halfway there. We wish to push for something more than a halfway measure.

As regards any amendments which the noble Baroness introduces at Third Reading, will she bear in mind some specific points? First, the measure should apply to all students from the ages of 19 to 25, and not to those who may just have been assessed in their final year under Clause 113 at 16. Secondly, I hope that she will make the process simple. The parents of many 19 year-old students find that they are embroiled in an enormous administrative nightmare in discussions with the FEFC to continue their children's education and training beyond the age of 19. It should be a simple and straightforward process.

Thirdly, I echo the point made by the noble Baroness on the Cross Benches on the previous amendment when she said that the provision should not be related to a student's attainment. The very fact that from the ages of 19 to 25 someone who has learning difficulties and disabilities is going through the process of education is in itself an enrichment process which should be continued until the age of 25. To give a little more teeth to the measure, apart from just making an assessment for 19 to 25 year-olds, I hope that there will be a requirement for LEAs to take that assessment into account. That takes the measure a little further. Without that requirement, the assessment will remain on the record book. Some LEAs will respond to such an assessment; others will not.

I support these amendments. I am sure that there will be progress, but we should like to go a little further than the Government have in mind at the moment.

My Lords, I support the amendments. This is a rather odd debate. We have a rough idea of the Minister's attitude towards the amendment and an idea of what will be her argument. Nevertheless, we should try to remind the Minister why we propose the amendment.

The amendment concerns young people who have not achieved their potential. It seeks to push the arbitrary barrier further back in order to give them another bite at the cherry. If those in a particular group of people have not attained a certain level of education through no fault of their own, surely extra opportunities should be extended for that group. If we take into account certain other groups, those with what are commonly called "hidden" disabilities—I know most about dyslexia, but one could bring in milder forms of autism—which are not diagnosed early enough, suddenly we are faced with a group of people who have not had a realistic chance of a first bite at the cherry. If we want to help them, we have to extend their opportunities.

I know that discretionary awards are allowed, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, virtually everyone involved in any charity dealing with education or any other kind of care, spends a vast amount of time advising parents or carers how to get through the bureaucratic system. If what the amendment seeks to achieve is contained in the Bill, such people will not waste anywhere near that amount of time. It also means that people with learning disabilities may not spend quite as many years up to the age of 25 in further education because they will have less trouble getting into it in the first place.

The amendment addresses real concerns about such people. It will enable them to get on with their lives as opposed to spending years chasing around trying to bully officials and crying on the doorsteps of local politicians in order to obtain something which should be theirs by right.

My Lords, my name is also attached to the amendment. The case has been ably put by those who have already spoken. I support the amendment. It would not be fair if these young people were left out. They would risk exclusion altogether. It is a terribly important amendment. The number of people affected is not very vast.

My Lords, I support the amendment. It has been made even more necessary as a result of information which has reached me since we last debated the Bill in Committee. I should again declare my interest as the father of a 19 year-old Down's syndrome daughter whose future education her mother and I are now in the throes of trying to clarify after she leaves her present school in July.

As this is Report stage, I should perhaps save the detail of what I have to say for the further Bill that the Minister has said the Government are to introduce later in this Session. Nevertheless, two areas are sufficiently worrying to put before your Lordships now in support of the amendment.

First, there appears to be a growing habit among some local education authorities to cut off funding for students as soon as they reach their 19th birthday. My noble friend Lord Baker referred to this. If someone turns 19 in the last year, or even the last term, of a three-year course, funding may stop. This is obviously very disturbing for the student who cannot complete the course or take part in the special events which may take place at the end of it. It seems that such LEAs consider that their responsibility ends abruptly when a student reaches 19 and that they do not have any duty towards continuity. That must be fairly clear discrimination against students with mental handicaps or learning disabilities. I cannot believe that it would happen to ordinary students who are funded for a particular course regardless of when their birthdays fall. This practice must also waste resources because much of the good achieved by the course is wasted if the student cannot complete it.

I do not know yet how widespread is the practice. Apparently it has become more so in the past three years. I can reveal, however, that this problem hit three students when they were leaving my daughter's school. One has had to go onto a social services placement which does not have any educational component at all; another will turn 19 next January and the LEA will commit funding only until then. It is not a convenient month in the educational calendar in which to be cut loose.

The FEFC is not blameless either. The parents of a student in the year ahead of my daughter did not learn that the FEFC had granted funding for the requisite special residential school until last September when the course had already started in August. Apart from anything else, this must be traumatic for such a student. I am quite sure that the parents would have been trying to obtain FEFC approval for at least a year before that. Very late on in the negotiations, the FEFC required the student to look at two unsuitable local colleges, which must also have been very upsetting. These are clear examples of the post-19 gap or trap, to which I referred in Committee, into which fall so many of our young people with mental handicaps.

Together with other noble Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about the Government's intentions. If the Government could accept the amendment, that would go a long way towards meeting some of the problems I have outlined because the LSC would have a clear responsibility for solving them. Without it, I fear the muddle may continue. I support the amendment.

My Lords, I wish to add my name to the long list of supporters of the amendment. The Government have made huge improvements in the Bill. As we have seen, the duties amendment has gone way beyond what we asked for. As the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, it would seem from the Minister's letter to my noble friend Lord Rix that the Government are moving a little. However, we are rather sticking on the issue and not getting beyond a certain point. As the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said, if a disabled learner does not complete his or her education, it is wasted. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, in the case of some people the problems have only just been discovered at this stage. They are not even beginning to get to grips with their education. This is a very important issue.