My Lords, the key is whether the direction would affect funding to a particular college. If it would, it is not permitted under Clause 117(4). So a direction to give more money to a named college would clearly not be permitted, nor would a direction to give money to a particular class of colleges. If there is only one college in the class, for example a direction to give more money to FE colleges in Winchester, which was quoted previously, a more general direction—a direction to allocate more money to skills training in a particular region—perhaps would be okay, because it would not necessarily affect the funding to any individual college or individual.
This subsection was intended to be a check on the Secretary of State to make him or her consider whether a direction is really about setting objectives for the chief executive as set out in subsection (1), or whether it is aimed at determining the levels of funding for particular providers. If a direction is framed in too specific a way, it may be vulnerable to challenge in the courts.
Clause 117 agreed.
Clause 118 agreed.
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Young of Norwood Green
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 15 October 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
713 c352 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:13:06 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_584598
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_584598
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_584598