Education Bill

Public Bill Committee, 8 January 2002.

Standing Committee G

Clause 25 - Power of governing body to provide

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 243, in page 15, line 38, at beginning insert:

'Subject to subsection (1A) below'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 244, in page 15, line 42, at end insert:

'(1A) Each local education authority shall report annually on the funding of services provided by its maintained schools under subsection (1) above.'

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I hope that you will permit me sufficient latitude, Mr. Griffiths, to wish you and Committee members a happy new year, and I hope that proceedings will continue in a good-natured way.

Amendment No. 243 would oblige local education authorities to report on the provision of community facilities. That would take account of the considerable new powers that are provided under clause 25, which include the power to incur expenditure in the provision of community facilities, to enter into agreement with outside bodies to provide staff, goods and services, and to provide accommodation for those purposes. The considerable scope of those powers requires protection for the public purse. We must ensure that we know how the powers are used and what the expenditure implications are. Given the powers over governing bodies that the Bill will grant to local education authorities, we must ensure that public funds are not used improperly, either in individual schools or within a local education authority.

The clause is an odd mixture of responsibilities and functions, which subsequent amendments will tease out and clarify. It does appear that the Government intend a mixed burden of responsibility for the provision of community facilities by schools. Local education authorities will be responsible in some cases for health and safety matters, thus giving the final go-ahead to new ventures, but in others the decision will lie with the school and the governing body. The new scheme will develop in an unpredictable manner, and the amendments would ensure that the public have sufficient information about the financial implications.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

May I take this opportunity to add that I am delighted that you are in the Chair, Mr. Griffiths, at the beginning of this new year? I also wish Committee members a very happy and healthy new year.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I share the

objectives of his amendment: probity, accountability and transparency in expenditure on community activities. However, the hon. Gentleman should withdraw the amendment, which would require the local education authority to publish all expenditure on community activities in which schools may be involved. That would place an onerous burden on LEAs, which is unnecessary in view of other safeguards.

Other clauses will ensure that information on expenditure for the provision of community services is available and transparent, and LEAs will be able to report on that if they believe that to be the best way forward. Provisions under clause 42 will require financial statements to capture all expenditure by governing bodies, which will include expenditure involved in exercising the powers to provide community facilities. The clause also makes it clear that regulations may require governing bodies to keep records on accounts and to send copies to the LEA. Schedule 3 provides another safeguard by allowing LEAs to seek specific information on the funding of community services.

There are sufficient safeguards to deal with the concerns about accountability, transparency, openness and financial probity that were raised by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), and I ask the hon. Gentleman again to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The Under-Secretary's response was helpful. Clause 42 may provide a requirement for proper financial reporting, but will that extend to the financial implications of the provision of accommodation? Will that be accounted for as it would in proper commercial accounts?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I understand that any use of community facilities for community activities would be part of the accounting processes. That includes accommodation, which would be integral to many of the financial consequences of extending a school's role to include a variety of community activities. That information would be gathered as part of the accounting process.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The Under-Secretary has gone almost as far as I would like him to. Will he confirm that the financial value of the accommodation provided should be accounted for at a commercial value, and that it will be reported on in the financial reports that are expected under clause 42?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

Governing bodies will be responsible for ensuring that accounts accurately reflect income and expenditure, part of which relates to community activities. We want to see a significant extension of schools' involvement in community activities, provided that that relates directly to raising standards. We expect governing bodies to maintain an accurate record of that income and expenditure, but it is up to governing bodies to decide an appropriate charge to a third party if they wish to allow their premises to be used for a purpose that is consistent with community use. In view of my assurances, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful for that clarification. As I understand the Under-Secretary, the governing body's financial reporting obligations are confined merely to direct income from, and expenditure for, the provision of community facilities. It is not required to account for the value of public property and resources—effectively, the capital—that is deployed. Our useful exchange has drawn out the Government's thinking about the extent of financial reporting that will be required.

I think that all hon. Members agree that, in many circumstances, there are advantages in schools providing community facilities. However, there may be implications for competition with services that the local authority provides by other means and for competition with outside providers. I merely flag up the possibility that other providers may have cause for complaint in that such use of public facilities is not accounted for in a comparable way. We have had a useful exchange in which the Under-Secretary has provided helpful assurances and information, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I beg to move amendment No. 181, in page 15, line 42, at end insert—

'(c) children below school age in the form of pre-school education.'.

I should say at the outset that we support the intention of clause 25. It is commendable that the governing body should have the power to make the premises and facilities of the school available to others in the community who are not pupils at the school. The purpose of the amendment is to make the clause more specific.

Ministers and the Government have announced their commitment to early-years education and to pre-school places for children aged four, and even three. If the commitment is to be more than just words that make Ministers sound good when it suits them, there should be a commitment in the Bill to make provision for pre-school education for children below school age. Amendment No. 181 would provide for such a commitment.

We have often said, and undoubtedly will again, that much of the Bill is wide and general. It allows this or that body to do almost anything. I am seeking a specific commitment. If the Government are committed to providing pre-school places for early-years education, such a commitment should appear in the Bill—and not just in this clause. That is why there should be a paragraph (c) that mentions specifically children who are below school age.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I thank the hon. Lady for saying that the Conservative party shares the broad objectives of the clause. There is a consensus that broadening the range of community activities that schools can offer and in which they can be involved is good for both the pupils and the wider community. Bringing the community into the school will benefit adult learners, for example, as well as help to tackle some of the

antisocial behaviour problems that we all know exist in our communities. Young people sometimes hang around outside while schools are closed. Those schools, working with the local community, could play a far more central role in tackling some difficulties. I welcome that general support.

We can be particularly proud of the Government's record on child care and early-years education, and I do not believe that we should include any particular prescriptive commitment in the Bill. If we were failing to deliver our pledges, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) would have a more legitimate point, but we are not. Indeed, it may be helpful to quote several examples of where the Government are making significant progress on child care and early-years education.

When the Government came to office in 1997, about 34 per cent. of all three-year-olds had access to a free early-education place. As a result of funding since 1997, that number has risen to about 62 per cent., which is a significant increase in a relatively short time. By March this year, the Government will have achieved their public service agreement target to provide a free early-education place to 66 per cent. of all three-year-olds. Committee members would agree that that is a credible record.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

It is a proactive Liberal Democrat policy.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I notice that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was proactive during the holiday in response to my unfair comments on the status quo just before Christmas.

The Government made a commitment to provide a free early-education place to all three-year-olds from September 2004, and I repeat that commitment this morning. The funding for early-years education is expected to increase from £1 billion in 1996 to about £2 billion in 2002–03. The Government have a credible track record on their commitment to investment in child care and early-years education. I hope the Committee will agree that we do not need to put particular targets in the Bill in the way that is suggested by amendment No. 181.

When the Bill's provisions come into force, all maintained schools will have the opportunity to provide child care for children of any age. That will include child care for three and four-year-olds, and we would expect that when governing bodies choose to provide child care, they will provide early-years education as part of the experience. For example, within an eight to 10-hour child-care day, three and four-year-olds will benefit from, on average, two and a half hours of pre-school education. That will benefit parents, teachers and others in the community who use the facilities.

Significantly, we would also ensure that the quality of the care is of the highest order. I do not need to explain the importance of the quality, not just the quantity, of child care or why good pre-school education is extremely important to a child's development and subsequent chances in life. It is common sense that Governments invest as a priority in

early-years education and child care. We know that the interventions made in those years can make the difference in a child and young person's development, particularly for those from disadvantaged families and communities, where there may be problems within the family unit. Early intervention through child care can make all the difference to the development of children and young people.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I agree with the Under-Secretary's comments. Given that commitment and that we all agree on its importance, why will he not make the commitment in the Bill?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I do not want to have a ping-pong discussion such as that before Christmas, when we agreed on objectives but disagreed about the mechanisms to achieve them. That would not be the best use of the Committee's time. Anyone who considers the issues objectively will accept that the Government have a very good and positive record. Legitimising the enhanced involvement of schools in a broader range of activities will support, assist and facilitate the Government's existing commitment to child care and early-years education. The definition and prescription in the amendment is not desirable or necessary.

We should remember that we are giving the governing body a power, not a duty. School governors will decide whether their school is best placed to provide child care or any other form of community provision. The governing body might decide to do that directly or through a third party, such as a voluntary sector or community-based organisation. We all know of community organisations in our constituencies, often run by young mums, that do an excellent job of providing child-care services. That takes us back to the point made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West about unfair competition. In many areas, community-based and voluntary sector organisations will benefit from the opportunities presented by enhancing the role of schools to provide a broader range of community activities.

I have not given the hon. Member for Epping Forest exactly what she wanted, although it is the new year and I would have liked to be able to do so, but I hope that I have reassured her about the Government's genuine intentions, commitment and track record in this policy area. On that basis, I ask her to withdraw the amendment.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I listened carefully to the Minister's reiteration of the Government's commitment, which we wanted to hear. If we cannot have that commitment in the Bill, at least it will appear in the record of the Committee's debate, which is better than nothing. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 265, in page 16, line 6, after 'education)', insert 'except section 450'.

I make no apology for the fact that the amendment is designed to open a can of worms. Clause 25 applies

the requirements and terms of chapter 3 of the Education Act 1996 to the charging for the provision of services and facilities. The Government's decision is interesting, first and foremost because the Minister of State acknowledged earlier in our proceedings that the Government did not intend to apply the terms of that chapter to schools that were allowed flexibility through the innovation provisions.

I shall not go to the unnecessary length of reading out the relevant provisions of the 1996 Act, but the scope of the legislation was quite considerable. It made a real attempt to encompass all the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for a school to charge for facilities. It prohibited charges for the provision of education. We had an interesting exchange early in our proceedings where the Minister of State agreed with me that neither side of the Committee wanted to introduce charges for the provision of education in maintained schools, yet he vigorously resisted the suggestion that we might include such a requirement in the Bill.

The 1996 Act contains detailed provisions about when charges may and may not be applied. They relate to charges for provision that is made outside school hours, incidental charges, charges for public examinations, permitted charges of various sorts and the regulation thereof, charges for board and lodging at boarding schools, provision of information and contributions and charges that are not affected by the chapter. It is interesting that the Government did not consider any of them to be appropriate to apply to schools granted freedom to innovate under the early clauses of the Bill. Yet here, under the clause 25 powers to provide community facilities, they believe that all those legislative provisions must apply.

Part of my purpose in tabling amendment No. 265 is to seek an explanation from the Minister about why it is more important to place those requirements on the provision of community facilities in clause 25 than on the provision of educational facilities in clauses 1 and 2. It seems rather odd that the Government are taking great care to protect the public from the imposition of charges in relation to community facilities such as the use of a school swimming pool or hockey pitch yet when it comes to educational innovation none of that protection is deemed appropriate. I wonder why.

Specifically, the amendment seeks to draw out one aspect of the provisions in the 1996 Act. Section 450 is a fairly simple provision that states:

''(1) No charge shall be made in respect of admission to a maintained school.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the admission of any person to any maintained school for the purpose of—

(a) part-time education . . . (b) full-time education . . . or (c) teacher training.''

It is not clear whether the term ''admission'' applies simply to admission to be a pupil at the school or to the school premises. Do the Government see it as appropriate to apply the relevant sections of the 1996 Act to the clause 25 powers to provide community facilities in such a way as to limit the scope of the governing body to charge for its provision? The Minister may reply immediately that it applies only to admission to the school roll. Will the governing

body be restricted in charging members of the community for the use of services? Will charging for admission to the premises be treated differently from charging for the use of facilities, training or coaching? The crucial point is not the detail of section 450, but to hear Ministers explain why the protection in the 1996 Act should apply more to the provision of community facilities than educational services.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

It was made clear in earlier debates that the suspension of charging would not apply to powers to innovate, which are not in question. However, there is no need to build it into the Bill because, under chapter 1, part I, no suspension will be allowed without the approval of the Secretary of State. No requirement to seek that approval is required in this instance, so the prohibition needs to be built into primary legislation. I repeat that there is no requirement to seek the Secretary of State's approval in these circumstances, but there is in respect of powers to innovate.

The lack of the requirement to seek approval explains the differences from the earlier debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The need for the prohibition to be built into primary legislation applies only in the one case, but that does not mean that we are taking the issues raised in the earlier debate less seriously. Different safeguards apply to decisions to engage in community activities.

My direct response to the hon. Gentleman is that the power to innovate requires the approval of the Secretary of State, who would consider the appropriateness of charging for services that contravened existing legislation or conflicted with the attainment of higher educational standards. Where an individual school or governing body seeks to provide community activities, the Secretary of State does not need to be consulted. In those circumstances, the safeguard needs to be built into primary legislation to ensure that the Government's policy—and the commitments and assurances of the Minister of State and myself—are not abused or undermined.

The amendment refers to charging for post-16 part-time education, post-19 full-time education and teacher training. The hon. Gentleman was honest enough to admit that the detail of the amendment is not important: it is a probing amendment. Schools already provide full and part-time education. Section 80 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and section 450 of the Education Act 1996, already allows them to charge for that provision. Therefore, I assume that this is a probing amendment. The hon. Gentleman is not proposing that we remove from governing bodies the capacity to charge for services for which, in some circumstances, they already charge. There is a clear, objective justification for governing bodies feeling that it is legitimate to charge for services such as those to which the amendment refers.

For example, students are already charged for some further and adult education classes. It would not be right to prevent governing bodies from covering their

costs for providing similar educational opportunities on a school, rather than a college or adult education site. If we were to deny governing bodies the opportunity to make those legitimate charges—the consensus is that charging for such provision is legitimate—it would contradict the purpose of the Bill to expand, encourage and facilitate enhanced involvement in community education activities. I therefore assume that the hon. Gentleman does not want to press the amendment to a vote.

We shall publish guidance that will offer advice to governors on adopting charging policies. As it is a complex matter, on which governors may be unfamiliar and inexperienced, the guidance will assist and support them by making clear what is legitimate and lawful and where they have discretion. We shall also advise governors on how to establish charges that are relevant and proportionate to individuals' ability to pay.

In the light of that explanation and my assurances, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider withdrawing what appears to be a probing amendment.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am interested in the Minister's response. He was not clear on the detail of the amendment, but I assume from the tenor of his remarks that the scope of the relevant sections of the 1996 Act relates only to admission to the school roll of a maintained school and cannot be construed as being admission to the school premises. Unless the Minister states otherwise, I shall accept that. However, I do not accept the attempt to differentiate between this and the situation in clause 2 relating to innovation and freedom simply because the approval of the Secretary of State must be sought. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State assure me that the Government have no desire to allow charging for education in maintained schools—and nor do future Conservative Secretaries of State. However, that is not a reason why such constraint should not be applied in primary legislation. It is perhaps the most important of all the legislative constraints that apply to the provisions for maintained schools and state education, but Ministers are prepared to do without it.

There is a false distinction between the refusal to apply chapter 3 of the 1996 Act to innovative matters because the Secretary of State's approval is necessary and the belief that statutory protection is necessary to the clause and the powers to provide community facilities. The distinction is false because, as the Minister mentioned, clause 26(4) provides almost the same protection. It states:

''a governing body shall have regard . . . to any guidance about the exercise of the power given . . . by the Secretary of State''.

It is difficult to envisage circumstances in which the Secretary of State would not be prepared to include the important issue of the validity of charging regimes in guidance. Governing bodies are required to have regard to guidance. Surely the protection provided under clause 26(4) is almost as strong as that which the Minister says is provided under an earlier clause that gives the Secretary of State an outright power of veto. I do not accept the Minister's distinction. We are discussing an important subject that raises the issue of the Bill's fundamental flaw, which is that Ministers are

reluctant to include details in the Bill that might inform Members, the public, and those who will implement the powers and responsibilities created under the Bill.

I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division. However, the Minister should reflect on the Government's inconsistent approach. In some instances, they are prepared to allow detailed statutory safeguards to remain in primary legislation, but in others, they open the door wide, and say ''Go on, do as you like,'' and place no statutory restriction on what can be done, not even—in theory—on introducing charges for places in maintained schools. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the matter and will perhaps introduce some improvements later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I apologise for being slightly late. I wish a happy new year to all members of the Committee except for the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), whose team, Cardiff City, beat Leeds United on Sunday. I shall not speak civilly to Welshmen for a few days. Once the matter is out of my system, I will be okay. [Interruption.] I am determined that there will be no more Mr. Nice Guy in 2002.

I listened with interest to the comments made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. At the general election, it was Tory policy that there should be free schools and no local authority involvement. All resources, with exceptions for a few functions, would be devolved to schools. That would have meant that no school could provide community facilities unless those facilities were self-financed. I am deploying Government thinking and would like the Minister's comments.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I will just finish my point. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to get too excited.

I agree with the Minister's comment about the need to make greater use of all our public facilities, and in particular our schools. It is sad to see young people hanging about—often with nowhere to go—when brilliant facilities are available for them. The previous Government set up a regime that made it clear that schools could not afford to open up their premises unless they could get an income from doing so. I had to cancel many youth facilities simply because I could not afford the costs of providing, for example, the premises and the staffing. Unless the youngsters could pay, we could not afford to do things. I urge the Government to take on board the fact that it is not good enough simply to give governing bodies the power to do things; we should also give them the matching resources that enable them to do those things.

I accept the Minister's comments about early-years education. My party is delighted that the Government have put into practice 1997 Liberal Democrat

manifesto commitments: the Minister is laughing but that is what the Government have done. However, I also want them to give the Committee, and governing bodies, the assurance that resources will be allocated for community services—instead of charging having to be introduced to provide them.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I merely wish the hon. Gentleman to comment further, as he misunderstood the scope of the powers of a local authority—regardless of its position as a local education authority. I wish him to reflect on whether a local authority might have the power to expend funds to make community provision of, for example, leisure or sporting facilities through schools, regardless of whether they are maintained schools, free schools, foundation schools—or any other type of school.

The Government have tried, in a limited way, to open up the sometimes excellent facilities of independent schools by creating partnerships between them and schools in the maintained sector. That is a welcome initiative, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to be more open minded about the different ways in which facilities might be provided. Therefore, he might wish to reconsider some of his opening remarks.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Mr. Willis, do you wish to do that?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

No. I am happy with the comments that I have made.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

Perhaps being more open minded is a reasonable new year's resolution to ask every hon. Member to adopt?

I agree with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough that we have a responsibility to ensure that resources are available to enable schools to be imaginative and innovative, to open their facilities and to engage with partners in the community, whoever they might be—voluntary and community organisations, for example, or NHS trusts, or private sector organisations, where appropriate. It is important to support such initiatives. A lot of money is being spent on study support, for example, and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that that is already contributing towards a significant improvement in standards.

However, it is also important to ensure that existing resources are being used to best effect. For example, the provision of accessible health services within a community might be an issue, in which case it would be necessary to address where those services locate themselves, as well as if they are spending existing money inappropriately. If services are not as accessible as they could be, it is important to address that, as well as to ensure that the Government make money available—through local education authorities, for example—to stimulate and support the development of extended schools.

We are talking about a significant culture change in the way that we look at community involvement and participation, and about schools being at the heart of their communities. For example, we are already spending a considerable sum on providing adult, community and family learning. There is a whole

range of existing funding available, including the children's fund, money for early-years development child-care partnerships and neighbourhood renewal. To be fair to governing bodies, one of the challenges that we face is to help them make sense of the range of funding schemes, which requires a different set of skills and experiences. I have experience of running a charity. The ability to tap into the available resources, knowing how to put applications together to hit the relevant criteria and ensure that one is working in partnership with other organisations that trigger resources is not necessarily a skill that people acquire without training, guidance and support. We must offer not only financial support specifically to target and stimulate service provision, but help governors and head teachers to acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to maximise the opportunities to trigger resources and truly open up the opportunities presented by the Bill.

We must also examine how central Government allocate and distribute resources and introduce the mechanisms that incentivise partnership. We must support initiatives in which schools make a particular effort to be innovative and we must examine these matters throughout Departments, not only in the box marked Department for Education and Skills. Encouraging schools to take a wider role in community activities has a bearing on many of the difficulties experienced by our communities, such as crime and antisocial behaviour, which is a scourge in many communities, health issues such as teenage pregnancy or drug abuse and poor rates of adult literacy and numeracy. If we are sufficiently innovative, imaginative and streamlined in the way in which we allocate resources and inform people about how to access them, cause 25 can make a difference to the Government achieving their objectives in a range of policy areas.

I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough about the need to provide resources to ensure that concepts are transferred to reality. We will examine how to offer specific support to local education authorities to enable them to have some form of infrastructure, albeit minimalist, that would enable schools to go down this route. There will be Government financial commitment, but we will also be asking the statutory voluntary and private sectors in communities throughout the country to come together to ensure that they take maximum advantage of the new powers and opportunities provided by the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Stephen O'Brien (Conservative, Eddisbury)

On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. This matter relates to preparation time for the discussion that we will have shortly on clause 28. Members of the Committee received a letter dated 19 December from the Minister providing draft regulations in relation to clause 41, which we do not come to until much later. In contrast to that, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale received only at 10.30 am today, an undated letter from the

Minister, signed in his absence, concerning the documents in relation to clause 28. Today's letter also refers to clauses 42 and 43. My other hon. Friends have not received it at all and neither have I. I have also been informed that it has not been received by other Opposition Members. It is appropriate to contemplate whether there should be a suspension to allow for consideration of what the Minister believes is pertinent to the discussion on clause 28 in advance of reaching it.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Griffiths. May I begin by welcoming you, Mr. Griffiths, to the Chair and by wishing every member of the Committee a happy new year?

We intend to provide as much information as possible to hon. Members about regulations. Such a concern has been expressed in earlier debates. Unfortunately, because of the Christmas break, it was not possible to get the information out as early as I would have liked. However, in anticipating this problem, we have copies of the information here for each member of the Committee. I am in your hands, Mr. Griffiths, about the mechanism to distribute the information. We intend to be as helpful as possible to all hon. Members.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Griffiths. We are grateful to the Minister when he distributes draft regulations in a genuine attempt to be helpful. We have pressed for that on many occasions. However, I suggest to the Minister that it is not helpful to the Committee, and is perhaps even unhelpful, when draft regulations are received in the internal post at 10.30 on the morning on which a particular clause is to be discussed—as happened this morning. Technically, the Minister will be able to claim that the information was available to Opposition Members before discussion in Committee. Practically, I have had no opportunity to read the letter that arrived this morning while the Committee was sitting and, because the Minister offered generously to distribute copies of the paper to all members of the Committee during the sitting, there is no proper opportunity for any member of the Committee to consider the detailed document.

I ask that consideration be given to a brief suspension to allow hon. Members to read the document, or to the reordering of the discussion of the clauses. If the papers are of value when considering clause 28, it is senseless for us to proceed with the discussion without reading them.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that he suggested that we should not have given out the information because that was possible only early today. He suggested that it was unhelpful to provide the information because of the timing.

We felt that it was important for as much information as possible to be available to hon. Members by the time that we reached this point of the Committee's deliberations. It is possible for an hon. Member, even one who plays such a prominent part in our debates, to have the odd moment in which to examine additional information. As I said, we have

ensured that copies are here for each member of the Committee.

I make it clear to the Committee that once we are back in the swing of things, we will ensure that information is provided as early as possible to allow hon. Members to read it before the Committee meets and to allow them to take account of that in their preparation for each sitting. I was anxious that the information should be available to every member of the Committee because it was available in the Department yesterday. That is why we took these steps.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The Minister is disingenuous to say the least. The information is not even on the Table and available to every member of the Committee, although it may be behind the desk. I understand that the document runs to 30 or 40 pages. It is unrealistic to ask us to read that during the Committee's sitting. The Minister reduces the Committee to a sideshow if he feels that we should not concentrate on the Minister's erudite comments in response to our equally erudite, demanding and compelling questions. [Interruption.] Oh, the papers are here. The least that we need is time to read the documents, or a reordering of the clauses, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I accept that the material should have been available this morning, and I apologise for the fact that it was not. Of course, the section dealing with clause 28 is not as lengthy as the hon. Gentleman suggests, and I hope that we can proceed. I was anxious that Members should be able to read information that was available in the Department yesterday, and I have taken steps to ensure that they can do so.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

There is an issue of procedure here. I do not have the power to suspend the Committee to allow hon. Members to read the documents, which, admittedly, have been provided at the last minute. That was unavoidable, as this is the Committee's first sitting of the new year. I am aware of the timetable for our proceedings, and further delay will put pressure on the Committee. The appropriate way to deal with the issue is to proceed through the usual channels. As there has been no illegality, and ''Erskine May'' has not been flouted—this has happened more than once during the past 20 years, and sometimes regulations have not been available at all when clauses have been debated—I have no power to suspend the Committee. If the usual channels want to resolve the matter, that is up to them.Clause 26 Limits on power to provide community facilities

Clause 26 - Limits on power to provide

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 224, in page 16, line 21, after 'they', insert 'and the maintaining LEA'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:

No. 182, in page 16, line 25, leave out subsection (4).

No. 130, in page 16, line 25, after 'body', insert

'of a community, voluntary controlled, community special or maintained nursery school'.

No. 131, in page 16, line 30, after 'and', insert

'(in the case of a community, voluntary controlled, community special or maintained nursery school)'.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I should say, Mr. Griffiths, that my earlier remarks about Cardiff City and Leeds United did not refer to you. You are totally neutral on such matters.

In relation to this simple amendment, I refer hon. Members to chapter 2, section 5 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West and I were on the Committee that considered the Bill, and we appreciated the Government's inclusion in it of a direct responsibility for local education authorities to raise standards in schools. It seemed strange, but that was the first time that it had been spelt out that that was the duty of local education authorities. That was to be welcomed. In fact, the amendment would merely ensure that, as local authorities have the duty—[Interruption.] That is just my wife paging me to say that lunch is ready—we eat early in Yorkshire, because it gets dark at teatime.

The purpose of the amendment is to take cognisance of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and ensure that local education authorities are consulted before actions are taken. The action of one governing body on community facilities or other facilities that it provides has a knock-on effect on others. Liberal Democrats have a problem with the fact that the Government are returning to the bad old days of 1988 and the previous Conservative Government, whereby competition between schools rather than co-operation is the name of the game. To achieve good community facilities so that a governing body can use its powers for the benefit of the broader community, not only for the school, it is important that the local education authority is consulted. We are proposing not that the local education authority should have the right to veto or that it must define what happens within governing bodies, but that the recommendations under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 are transferred to the Bill so that the LEA is consulted.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

Again, I think that we agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman. However, what is puzzling is that we believe that, in such circumstances, clause 26(4) already requires the governing body to consult the LEA before it undertakes community activities and to have regard to its advice. As part of that process, the local education authority could raise any concerns that it has about the proposed activities of the governing body. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that the proposal is about not only the LEA considering whether an individual proposal would work, but it taking account of the strategic needs of a given community and ensuring, for example, that schools near to each other do not provide the same community

activities. Under a more strategic corporate approach, there could be a better range of community activities that would benefit a particular community. Given the hon. Gentleman's spirit of open mindedness in the new year, I ask him to accept that amendment No. 224 is unnecessary because clause 26(4) contains the safeguards that he requests.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I hear what the Under-Secretary says. We tabled the amendment because clause 26(3) refers to

''the performance of any duty imposed on them by section 20(2) or by any other provision of the Education Acts.''

The inclusion of the local education authority in the provision would satisfy its requirements. However, given that the Under-Secretary will not accept our reasonable proposal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I shall put the question that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I thought that we would have an opportunity to debate the other amendments to the clause.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

That opportunity has passed. If the hon. Gentleman wants to speak to clause 26 stand part, he may.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

In that case, I have no option but to speak to the clause.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I wanted to explain amendment No. 182. It sits alongside amendment No. 224, which has just been withdrawn by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough.

Stephen O'Brien (Conservative, Eddisbury)

For the sake of fairness, I wish to intervene on my hon. Friend. He was trying desperately to read the document that he has just received, hence the unusual procedure that he is now adopting. For the record, I want it to be known that my hon. Friend is trying to catch up with the document that the Minister distributed.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Ministers have encouraged us all to scrabble to understand the detail of the document that was distributed a few moments ago. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's concern for my reputation in the record of the Committee, such as it may be.

Amendment No. 182 has almost the opposite effect to amendment No. 224. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and I have agreed with each other for much of the proceedings. We will be more comfortable now that we are on different ground and more familiar territory. The hon. Gentleman sought to increase the role of LEAs in schools' provision of community facilities.

The Minister gave an interesting insight into his thinking when he said that clause 26 seeks in part to limit harmful competition between schools that provide community facilities. That suggests that it may be damaging if two neighbouring schools seek to

provide the same facility, and is one reason why the hon. Gentleman seeks to constrain the freedom of schools to provide the facilities that the Minister seeks to allow them under clause 25. That runs the risk, in principle and in spirit, of being contrary to what Ministers claim is the aim of the Bill: the thrust towards innovation and experimentation, and the drive to maximise the potential of resources that are focused on educational provision. Better use may be made of those resources than is made at present by opening them up to wider community use.

Amendment No. 182 would remove the obligation to consult the LEA. That would not greatly increase the risk of unnecessary duplication of resources, but would protect the freedom of schools to innovate and to open up their facilities in new ways. The Minister must surely accept that under clause 25 schools that provide community facilities may be competitors with not only another school, but a local authority that may be a principal provider of community facilities. In some local authority areas, good facilities may be provided for sports and recreation, such as public swimming pools. The local community may not need schools to expand the provision of such facilities. In many other areas, there may be poor facilities, or the provision may be patchy. Clause 25 is welcome in that it seeks to extend the ability of schools, which are generally widely placed around the communities that they serve, to fill existing gaps in provision. Clause 26 would regrettably constrain that by obliging schools to consult LEAs when, as providers of those facilities, LEAs may not always act impartially as protectors of the interests of the communities that they serve.

A local authority that provides particular facilities—with which the local populace may be less than satisfied—might find it convenient to discourage, dissuade or block provision by schools, which may have something to offer the community. The local authority may be concerned about loss of custom in a poor local swimming baths, or that a poorly lit hockey pitch will no longer be used. It may be concerned about the impact on its current leisure facilities.

If Ministers want to increase the likelihood of communities having good recreational facilities through opening up existing school facilities and allowing schools to improve, enhance and expand facilities, we support that. However, the Government may constrain their positive objectives by placing a potential competitor in a strong position under clause 26.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

A local education authority may not provide services that a school wants to develop. For example, after-school clubs are not run directly by LEAs. In recent years, few schools have been willing to open up their premises for after-school facilities, and that has been a point of contention. As a constituency MP, I have raised that issue on behalf of parents and after-school providers who have had to look for other suitable premises. My hope for the Bill is that, through the inclusion of child care and other services as part of a school's possible remit, governing bodies will engage in discussions with head teachers

and the wider community about putting those measures into practice.

Provision has already developed in some areas, where there are after-school clubs, holiday play schemes or adult learning in community centres. In my constituency, several community centres have had support and resources from the Government to set up adult learning facilities using computers and other technology. Schools would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces if they did not engage with community groups, organisations and services. If such groups provide better value, or can work in partnership by encouraging after-school providers to come into schools, that is welcome. I hope that the Minister will be mindful of those groups that have a stake in the development of new facilities and services by schools. Under subsection (4)(a), I hope that Ministers will consider recognising those groups and organisations in guidance provided for schools.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

Further to the comments of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), I believe that it is important that after-school clubs and a variety of community groups are able to use school premises, which remain idle for a large part of the week. That highlights the flaw in clause 26, especially subsection 4, which requires a head teacher to seek permission from a local authority to act. If three or four parents want to run a small after-school club for a dozen kids in a classroom and it is not a problem for the school, the governing body will have to submit a request to the local authority to allow them to do that. The clause states:

''Before exercising the power under section 25(1) a governing body shall consult the local education authority''.

That puts an extra burden on a school using common sense to make a decision.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I interpret ''consult'' as consulting, not seeking permission. Furthermore, LEAs are members of early-years child care development partnerships, which aim to develop boroughwide or districtwide child care. They try to balance the provision of early-years education and a range of child care support services across the borough, and the LEA plays an important part. I suggest that we should take in good faith the emphasis on consultation.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

Many of us have been involved with local authorities and schools. The measure requires a head teacher to have a discussion with the LEA—whether to consult or to seek permission—before he or she can allow three or four parents to use a classroom for a couple of hours after school on a Thursday. While some limitations on the power may be sensible, that seems an unnecessary element given what the Government are trying to achieve with the Bill. The reality is that the measure puts an extra burden on a head teacher who is actually making a simple, common-sense decision; therefore, it is unnecessary.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

The debate has been interesting. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West used his opportunity to speak on the clause to discuss the amendment that he would have made if he had not been so engrossed in the document that was circulated

in the Committee. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) referred to that, tongue in cheek.

Conservative Members seem to have distanced themselves from the common-sense revolution, as they used to describe their policies. Much of the debate has been about common sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley was right to draw attention to the fact that a range of community service providers are linked to school sites or have partnerships with schools. The obvious body to play the crucial role of ensuring proper consultation and partnership arrangements with existing providers is the local education authority. It is the conduit that links voluntary-sector and private-sector service provision with the services that it provides directly.

The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) discussed the key word ''consult.'' We are not suggesting that head teachers or governing bodies must seek permission. However, it is common sense that they should consult the local education authority about significant community activity development in order to consider the implications for all the community. To ensure that young people obtain maximum benefit from the resources, ideas, innovations and facilities that exist or that are in the pipeline, it makes sense to consult and involve the local education authority. It can provide sensible, sound advice to the school, and can also look at the bigger picture of the shape, design, development and expansion of community activities.

Frankly, people who talk about the days when local authorities blocked initiatives and new ideas because they competed directly with their service provision are living on a different planet. Most elected members in most local authorities are desperate to rebuild communities that were decimated under years of Tory rule, and the Government are intent on doing so and on providing a better quality of life for the individuals in them. The clause is integral to the overall vision that the Government have for the rebuilding of communities as part of the rebuilding of society. The attempt to portray local education authorities as a bar to initiative and an impediment to community development is a complete misreading of what any half-decent local authority of the 21st century wants to achieve. That is the proper role of local authorities, and it is also in their self interest as it can improve public perception of their performance. A local authority will benefit directly from enhanced and cohesive services for individuals in communities that it is elected to serve.

Mr. Brady rose—

Chris Grayling rose—

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The Minister was uncharacteristically partisan in his opening comments, which I am sure he regrets. Will he consider one particular example from my constituency? There is a good local partnership between Bowdon Church of England school and the Bowdon hockey and cricket club. They co-operate in making the best use possible of a pitch that they have used jointly for many years. The Minister referred to

the need to rebuild communities, but the local authority, Trafford metropolitan borough council, is intent on allowing building on that pitch. It will be the local authority that will frustrate an existing partnership that is working effectively and has done so for a long time. In those circumstances, what possible benefit can there be from consulting the local authority?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on what is clearly a politically sensitive issue in his constituency without a full briefing of the facts and without both sides of the story. I hope that he does not mind me saying this, but I am dubious about whether his account is a true reflection of the behaviour of a Labour local authority, given that he is the Conservative Member of Parliament. I would imagine that there is considerable disagreement in the community about what is in its best interest. I am not prepared to comment on particular circumstances without the full facts and a balanced picture.

To return to the point, consultation can involve a detailed submission to get in-depth and professional advice from the local education authority on a significant community development proposal. It can also mean a telephone call to the relevant officer in the local education authority to say, ''We're thinking of doing this. Do you know what our neighbouring schools or the voluntary sector are doing or planning? Does the idea sound sensible?'' We want a common-sense, strategic and cohesive overview. We do not want to eliminate competition or to support local authorities, as portrayed by Conservative Members, that try to subvert innovation or to limit the expansion of services that would benefit their populations.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am encouraged by the Minister's comments on local authorities, because that is my experience too. In contrast to what was described by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, a new hockey club has been built in Harrogate with the support of Sport England, the county council and Harrogate Granby high school. It is a good and well-used facilities, and an example of co-operation.

There is one flaw in the Minister's argument: and he has siren-like qualities from time to time. There is no problem with a win-win situation like Harrogate Granby, where an all-weather hockey pitch provides good facilities for the school, club and community. However, I am sure that the Minister and the hon. Member for Don Valley would agree that we need to involve schools in some of the more demanding aspects of community activities. Some youngsters are difficult to deal with, and helping them may be one of the less sexy aspects of youth work.

A flaw that was deliberately engineered by the previous Tory Government is that schools can turn away organisations that most need the school for facilities. Local authorities cannot insist if schools refuse to help groups in the greatest need of facilities. We have tabled a later amendment to deal with the

problem, but will the Minister respond to this important issue now?

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Order. Interventions should be shorter.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough makes a valid point. Providing young people—and particularly the most disengaged and detached—with services and facilities poses a challenge in a whole range of policy areas. It is not easy: there are no trite ways of solving the problem. This aspect may not be attractive or sexy. In the past, insufficient financial incentives were built into the system to encourage governing bodies and head teachers to take action, which would be viewed negatively rather than positively.

This part of the Bill is all about changing the culture. We are not trying to force or oblige governing bodies to offer a wider range of activities: that would be inappropriate. The hon. Gentleman, as a former head teacher, will know of the skills sometimes displayed by heads in subverting governing bodies. If a head teacher believes that proposals by the governing body are not a good way of proceeding, a variety of means can be used to subvert them.

As I said, we do not believe in forcing or obliging schools in this regard, but we want as many levers and incentives as possible to encourage them to help us to solve deep-rooted social problems. It is right to seek to raise educational standards. Providing a decent education makes a major contribution to a troubled young person's life. It provides the foundation for securing good qualifications, a decent career and decent life chances. Equally, however, imaginative and fulfilling activities can take place within a school environment to help those less likely to do well academically. More imaginative, visionary and flexible means of working with young people can be beneficial.

Community activities can help schools to provide a broader infrastructure, and using the new and broader community facilities can help with the management of more difficult children. Community activities benefit the wider society, bring adults back into education and connect the school to the community, but community facilities can be used in more imaginative ways to help to deal with some of the children who most challenge teachers and make their lives so difficult. That can have a knock-on effect or a spin-off benefit.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough may know from his professional experience that some head teachers of high-performing academic schools have always acknowledged their responsibility to the wider community, and especially to disaffected young people. Their genuine enthusiasm for and commitment to that concept and those principles does not undermine the standards in those schools, and has a value-added aspect. Being a more integral part of the community often enhances a school's quality of education.

Chris Grayling rose—

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

We must challenge the myth that if a school is involved in wider community activities, bringing the community into the school and the school to the community, it is deflected from its central, mainstream responsibility to raise standards, because such activities are integral to raising education standards in communities.

I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. We are beginning a journey to challenge the culture and to tackle some of the attitudes that prevent the development of provisions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley referred. Hon. Members, especially those who were elected members of local authorities, know the frustration of parents who ask a school to provide certain facilities to which the governing body and the head teacher are not well disposed because they think that that is a distraction from their core function, whereas down the road a head teacher and a governing body with an entirely different attitude are willing to embrace change and innovation and take a wider role in the community. We all know the difficulties and the frustrations involved, but with the provisions on community activities and the power to innovate, the Bill—especially the clause—will open up opportunities and challenge the culture and attitudes to which the hon. Gentleman rightly drew the Committee's attention. I therefore ask that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

Forgive me for intervening, Mr. Griffiths, but the Minister did not want to give way to me, in spite of my standing up several times. He added the important word ''significant'' when he referred to my comments. He should remember that he is making the law; the law has details and it must be obeyed. I have no problem with the concept of schools consulting local authorities about significant matters, but the wording of the measure will require every head teacher who takes a booking for the one-off use of a sports pitch to tell the local education authority by telephone. In a large LEA area that is an unnecessary restriction. The addition of the words ''significant'' and ''modification'' might be appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - Additional functions of governing body

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 100, in clause 27, page 16, line 42, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.

This is a probing amendment. Members of the Committee, especially those who are constantly in and out of schools throughout the country, will acknowledge that complaints against teachers, especially head teachers, are increasing dramatically. That is a problem for everyone in public life, not just in schools, because people are encouraged to complain more than ever before. I blame the charters introduced by Mr. Major, the former right hon. Member for Huntingdon, which were introduced without the resources to support them. People's expectation of

the service that they receive was raised far beyond what it was possible to deliver. A litigious culture has developed in which parents who do not get what they think is the right outcome for their child see it as a failure by the teacher or head teacher concerned, and they complain.

We have a system for parental complaints against head teachers, but the process is extraordinarily detailed, procedural and convoluted. That is detrimental to the complainant, because a conclusion takes so long to reach, and to the head teacher, who has to deal with a huge amount of bureaucracy in responding to the complaint. Ultimately, the head teacher must appear before a panel of governors for the complaint to be discharged.

The purpose of this simple amendment is to tease out the Government's thinking. I am sure that the Minister supports the tenor of my comments, if not the detail. If a complaint is made, it should be heard and dealt with quickly, so that people can move on and not get involved in a huge procedural outcome. Some issues, however, threaten to involve criminal law. Clearly, complaints from which criminal cases might proceed are different from the run-of-the-mill complaints that are regularly made to most head teachers and chairs of governors in the course of their duties.

Clause 27(2) states:

''In establishing or publicising procedures under subsection (1), the governing body shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time . . . by the Secretary of State or . . . the National Assembly for Wales.''

That is a huge, all-inclusive provision. ''Any guidance'' means anything that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly may introduce at any time. The amendment proposes that there should be specific guidance. By changing the word ''any'' to ''the'', there would be specific guidance on the way in which governing bodies can exercise their functions.

Governing bodies should be allowed to get on with developing their own procedures within a broad framework that is exercised by the Government. Procedures that work in downtown Chapeltown in Leeds will be different from those that work in parts of Northumberland or other communities. Governors should be allowed to get on with developing procedures provided that they meet the requirements of protecting the individual who has been complained about and the complainant. That is the purpose of this probing amendment.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The clause establishes a statutory duty on governing bodies to establish and publicise procedures for dealing with school complaints. They do not currently have that duty, and I agree that it is important to have it in place. The overwhelming majority of governing bodies have complaints procedures in place, and they certainly take complaints seriously.

There is room for more debate on the need for Government to prescribe in detail the processes and procedures that should apply to every school in the

country. I agree that, in practice, there will be variation among schools in different circumstances and different areas.

Under the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, we consulted on draft regulations for complaints procedures, and there was a strong feeling in the response that we were being unduly prescriptive in setting out exactly how the procedures should work. As a result, the Minister at the time decided not to go ahead with introducing a statutory requirement under the 1998 Act, although there was the power to do so. We have learnt from that, and we can now build on the work done at that time. There is already useful practice and experience on complaints procedures at local level, including a good deal of guidance on handling complaints from, for instance, LEAs, diocesan boards and the local government ombudsman.

I am reluctant to say that there will definitely be guidance as I am not sure that Government guidance is necessarily appropriate. We want to ensure that governing bodies have access to clear and helpful guidance on establishing and publishing complaints procedures, but we want to avoid unnecessary and confusing duplication of guidance. We intend to undertake a review of existing complaints procedures, many of which share common features, to make good practice examples available on our school governors' website. We will also consult on whether there should be a limited number of key principles, such as on the time limits that should apply, to which schools might be asked to adhere in devising their procedures.

We need to do some more work before we determine whether Government guidance is needed in this area. I am reluctant to accept the amendment because it would imply that there definitely will be guidance. Although I am resisting the amendment, I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that his sentiments are in line with our approach. We recognise that there will be different approaches in different schools, and we want schools to have access to examples of good practice in complaints procedures. It sounds as though, in the hon. Gentleman's experience, procedures have not worked as well as they might.

We want to ensure that examples of good practice are available to schools, but not at this stage to decide whether Government guidance is appropriate: we will make that decision in the light of the consultation that will follow. If there is to be guidance or if examples of good practice are to be made available, that will happen early in the 2003–04 academic year. I hope that is of some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. He made it clear that it is a probing amendment, so I hope that he will feel able to withdraw it.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I am worried by some aspects of the Minister's remarks. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made a good point about our current litigious and complaining society, although I

do not agree with his analysis of the reasons for it. There is obviously a sensible balance to be struck between listening for justified complaints from parents and allowing parents to complain about anything that moves, which is the case in too many schools. A few weeks ago a head teacher told me that one of his biggest problems is that parents often refuse to accept what the teachers say. If the teachers say that a pupil is causing problems, more often than not the parents will not accept it.

It worries me that the Minister does not feel that any guidance is necessary on that. We need to think of the nature of schools. Amateur governing bodies do their best to provide support to head teachers in an area that is becoming increasingly problematic for schools. The burden of complaints, particularly about the conduct of staff, is growing all the time. Schools need clear support and guidance on that. The Government will have to be quite tough in setting out when complaints will be accepted and how they will be processed, and they must protect teachers against the risk of false allegations by pupils, which happens all too regularly.

It also worries me that the Minister is not certain that Government guidance on such matters is needed. It is one of the few areas in which their guidance is definitely required. They must show leadership and help schools to deal with complaints and related circumstances. I urge the Minister to reconsider what he has just said. It is necessary to give schools support and a clear framework within which to operate, and to give their heads, governors and teachers strong protection against a culture in which people's behaviour and their unwillingness to accept what teachers say are not given serious enough attention.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The debate has been interesting and important. I agree with many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. Although at first he said that there were not many complaints, he concluded by saying that more complaints are indeed being received. At least we have come together at the end of the circle. There is a lot of guidance. The Minister was right to say that different organisations have issued guidance and that there is no statutory process at present, but that that leads to significant confusion. We do not want each school to have the same procedures. The Minister also made that point.

I agree with the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell that a broad framework within which schools must operate would be extremely welcome. If the Minister is suggesting that draft proposals should be put forward for consultation through the website, that would also be welcome. I examined the issue after the previous consultation process, and I agreed with the then Minister, who is now the Secretary of State, that the proposed procedures were over-elaborate and over-prescriptive and, instead of solving problems for schools, they would have added to them. In light of the debate, I hope that the Minister will think again about the issue and perhaps, before the Bill is enacted, proposals could be produced either here or in the other place to bring together the best of the guidance, which would help schools and their governors to form their policies.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I hope that I made it clear that advice will be provided. The question whether the Government should issue formal guidance should be subject to more discussion. To answer the hon. Gentleman's point, I do not think that such discussions will be concluded before the end of our debates on the Bill, because wider consultation will need to take place. He may be right, however, that a limited set of key agreed principles could then be issued as guidance. However, we must have a wide discussion to see whether that is the appropriate way forward.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 183, in page 17, line 11, leave out 'comply with' and insert 'take account of'.

The amendment explores how far Ministers believe that the heads and governing bodies of schools have meaningful, managerial independence. The amendment would replace the requirement under which the governing bodies and the head teachers of

''a community or voluntary controlled school . . . a community special school, or . . . a maintained nursery school''

are placed under a duty to

''comply with any direction given to them by the local education authority concerning the health and safety of persons on the school's premises or taking part in any school activities elsewhere.''

The amendment would delete the term ''comply with'' and replace it with ''take account of''. It would ensure that schools were properly advised and informed of what the health and safety provisions should be, and that schools that were ''community or voluntary controlled'' or fell under one of the other categories listed in subsection (5) would not be left in the cold by the education authority, because it could still offer direction on health and safety matters, but that direction would not be compulsory. The governing body and the head teacher would exercise managerial independence in meeting the obligations imposed on them by the Bill and by existing health and safety legislation.

If the Government resist the amendment, responsibility will be transferred from the head and the governing body. Under the Bill, ultimate responsibility rests with the local education authority, which is required to direct the school to comply with health and safety provisions.

If the Bill is not amended, the governing body and the head teacher will not be responsible for health and safety in the school: they will have passed any meaningful responsibility for those matters to the local education authority. If the amendment is agreed to, the local education authority will still have a duty to direct when it perceives a danger on health and safety issues. It could give advice, guidance and information, but the head and the governing body would decide whether to take account of that direction and make use of it to fulfil their obligations to ensure that the school is a safe working and educational environment for staff, pupils and visitors to the premises.

It is interesting that some categories of school have been picked out and listed in subsection (5). That raises the issue of the extent to which the Government are serious about the autonomy of schools. There is already a difference between the degree of autonomy available to any foundation and voluntary-aided school, and that available to

''a community or voluntary controlled school . . . a community special school, or . . . a maintained nursery school''.

That difference is defined in a new way in subsection (5), which takes day-to-day managerial responsibilities away from schools and gives them to local education authorities. Not only is that negative for the autonomy of schools, but it is less likely to result in effective health and safety provision. Surely it would be more effective to place day-to-day control of health and safety in the hands of the people who most intimately know the school—who know its working environment, and who represent, through election to the governing body, both those who work in the school and those whose children are its pupils. It is better to place that control directly in the hands of people who intimately know the school, and who can take real responsibility for it—with the proper guidance and back-up that the local authority can provide—than to make it a matter of compulsion and instruction, which takes control out of their hands, and, therefore, places the onus, and the final responsibility, on the local education authority.

Is not the Minister concerned that there is a danger that, if a local education authority does not make a specific direction, it will incur a liability under health and safety legislation for having failed so to do? If clause 27 remains unamended, it will possible for the governing body and the head teacher to avoid that responsibility. Following an accident or a mishap, they can point to subsection (5) and say, ''We were not directed by the local authority. Had we been directed by the local authority, we would immediately have complied with that direction, but, as there was no such direction, we have done nothing wrong.'' The responsibility should lie with the school, and the head teacher and the governors should have the responsibility to provide a safe working, teaching and learning environment in the school, while drawing on the advice, guidance and support of the local education authority. I am interested to hear the Minister's response to that.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

There is a significant problem with the hon. Gentleman's proposal; it would amount to a significant weakening of the health and safety protection for pupils, and others, in schools.

As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, the local education authority is the employer of the staff in the schools that are listed in subsection (5), and it also owns the premises. Therefore, it has the primary responsibility for health and safety matters under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Given that the authority bears that statutory responsibility, we need to ensure that it also has the power to address problems when they arise, because, otherwise, it would have the statutory responsibility without being able to do anything to meet it. As the authority carries the liability under the Act, it is right that we should give it

the power to make directions, and that the head teacher and the governing body should be under a duty to comply with those directions.

It might further reassure the hon. Gentleman to know that the position that I have outlined was inserted in the Education Act 1986 by the then Secretary of State, Lord Baker. He introduced local management of schools; that was done on the insistence of the Health and Safety Executive, which was worried that, otherwise, there would be a statutory requirement on local education authorities but that there would be no mechanism for them to fulfil their statutory obligations. With regard to that, the form of words under discussion ensures that the mechanism that is needed is in place.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The Minister has gone a considerable way towards reassuring me, and other Committee members will be reassured to know that my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Baker, had a hand in the original legislation. That will give them great confidence and make them feel far happier.

The amendment under discussion is a probing amendment, but it has been useful. I have certainly found the debate about it informative, even if other Committee members have not. However, I wish to press the Minister a little further about one point. Given the current wording—whose provenance, I accept, may be in the 1986 Act—is it possible to construe that the power or responsibility to direct as the body principally responsible under the 1974 Act is exclusive? Is it possible for the school to avoid what one may regard as its natural responsibility because the primary responsibility of the employer and owner of the premises lies elsewhere? Would it be appropriate to examine whether that should lie alongside other obligations that could be properly put in legislation to place a duty on the head and governor to maintain a safe and healthy working environment—in the terms of the 1974 Act—while providing the power that is in the Bill for the local education authority to direct when appropriate? That would provide the power that the authority requires as the body that is ultimately responsible as owner and employer.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

In practice, there is no problem. The hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the position under the 1974 Act that the local education authority bears primary responsibility. In practice, local arrangements will be made between the LEA and its schools to satisfy the LEA that its statutory obligations are met through what happens in each school. The mechanism has worked well.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am satisfied by the Minister's response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I beg to move amendment No. 160, in page 17, line 13, at end insert—

'(6) The governing body of a maintained school shall use their best endeavours to secure that—

(a) reasonable steps are taken by the governing body, head teacher and staff to ascertain the views of pupils on matters which affect them, and

(b) due weight is given to the expressed views of pupils on matters affecting them, having regard to the pupil's age and understanding.'.

I apologise to the Committee on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) who, unfortunately, cannot be present.

I am delighted to move the amendment, which would allow the views of the people who will be most affected by the Bill and actions taken by schools to be aired; the pupils. I thank the Children's Consortium on Education and, especially, Save the Children for providing me with briefings about this issue.

There is no doubt—I am fully aware of this—that, since 1997, the Government have endeavoured to examine different, new and imaginative ways in which to allow pupils to participate in issues that affect them most in school. Those issues may be about learning, or about the way in which the school is run. In Doncaster, in schools, youth clubs and the Connexions service, we try to examine ways of engaging young people and allowing their voices to be heard on issues that affect them. When I hold children's surgeries, I am amazed—although I should not be—that children and young people raise many of the same worries as their parents, grandparents and other adults. Those worries may be about access to services, crime or the environment in which they live.

When I talk to young people, it comes across that even when schools endeavour to include young people and children in issues that the school is addressing—such as the curriculum or the way in which the school is run—young people and children who attend students' councils and participate do not feel part of the decision-making process. They are not encouraged to participate when considering issues that are of real interest to them. That often leads to apathy on students' councils or other school forums because, after a while, the kids think that their voices are not heard on the nitty-gritty issues. That does not mean that everything that they say should be agreed to. If one participates, one must accept that sometimes one's opinions will not be heard, as we know from this place.

The issue of relevance is important. From September this year, citizenship will be introduced in the curriculum, as will requirements in terms of citizen education within key stages three and four. I am voicing the concern—expressed by groups outside this place—that unless there is some kind of statutory and legal common standard of access to participation that acknowledges pupils, not enough tangible change will occur. A recent review of pupil democracy in Europe highlighted the fact that the UK is out of line with the rest of Europe. There is no legislation on pupil involvement or grievance procedures, no pupil ombudsman, and no system for consulting pupils on education policy.

Why would it be a good idea to include the amendment in the Bill? First, children and young people should have appropriate access to having a say in how important decisions affecting them are made

and in how and where they are educated. Clause 27(3) states:

''The governing body of a maintained school may require pupils in attendance at the school to attend at any place outside the school premises for the purposes of receiving any instruction or training included in the secular curriculum for the school.''

That raises the issue of where young people are educated, and in what sort of school environment they are educated. I am referring to wrap-around policies that affect the ethos of the school; the way in which it tackles bullying, the general built environment and facilities in the playground. When kids are told that, regardless of the weather, they must go out in the playground, problems are caused if there is not much for them to do there. Kids have said to me that litter is one of the reasons why they hate their school environment, because that kind of degeneration is not tackled. We all know that if the environment is not pleasant, they will not be motivated to learn or work well.

The amendment refers to reasonable steps being taken and due weight being given. It does not refer to free-for-all children's rights. I may be out of step with Save the Children and the consortium, but I do not believe in children's rights regardless. I am not an advocate of voting at 16, for example. However, I believe in looking at what are the appropriate stages in children's and young people's lives when they have something relevant to offer.

One example was given to me by a primary school teacher, who told me how teachers and the governing body had discussed how to get a grip on the way in which the playground operated, and how kids in the playground interacted. They devised a set of playground rules that were stuck up on nice coloured posters around the playground, only to have a seven-year-old telling them, within minutes of them going up, that there was a loophole in one of the rules. Kids have intelligence, and they can help us to avoid spending a lot of time and energy on things that they can find their way around blindfold.

Most of us who have worked with children or who are parents know that, when we try to communicate a rule or a point of view to young children, we can find ourselves at cross purposes unless we ask them to tell us what they understand by what we have said. That happens a lot. It may be because adults, like children, decide to switch off when the other is talking. That is an important part of the process in schools. If schools are to consider changes in the curriculum and the way in which young children want to learn—for example, if a governing body sits down and decides that it wants to change the format of the classes or classroom, or that it wants to introduce technology to help children learn—we must test those ideas out with the people whom we hope will benefit from such changes.

Unless we seek children's ideas to make sure—for want of a better phrase—that we are singing from the same song sheet and that we understand what is going on, enormous energy, effort and resources might go into things that, at the end of the day, do not necessarily prove their worth. Those are all good

reasons why formally acknowledging children and young people's involvement could benefit the Bill.

We already encourage participation and citizenship in schools. What better way to enhance that aspect of the curriculum than by applying it to real life? Many people find that when they are given hypothetical situations about which to theorize, the experience is not real. The citizenship agenda would not merely involve sitting in a classroom and examining case studies, but decision-making in the school environment. I hope that it would add excitement for children and young people.

In schools that have taken a positive approach to the agenda, research shows that there has been an impact in terms of behavioural policies and outcomes, and on educational achievement, attendance and so forth.

The Bill states that it is necessary to specify parents and employees as governors, but not pupils, and, while the Bill states that it is necessary to specify that the annual parents meeting should be open to parents and head teachers, it does not specify pupils. There is a concern that, despite all the guidelines and research about positively encouraging student involvement, we could still end up with a hit-and-miss affair. If one had to change schools for some reason, one could go from a culture of inclusion and participation in one school to another that was isolated and token in its approach.

I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's comments. Pupil involvement in schools is an important stepping stone towards encouraging future participation in democratic society when, as adults, they have the opportunity to vote.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I commend the hon. Lady on the principles of her amendment. Her commitment to the involvement, well-being and success of the pupils in her constituency and beyond is evident.

The older generation does not always do the best job in planning for the needs of the younger generation. A personal bugbear is that our country's response to a lack of activities for the young tends to be, ''Let's build a youth club''. We tend to concentrate on offering fixed assets rather than on things to do. In providing for the younger generation, I would like to see a greater focus on activity rather than infrastructure. The hon. Lady pointed out the need to ensure that pupils' aspirations, interests and views are clearly reflected in the management of schools, and that too many schools have pressed ahead without the staff taking that into account.

I endorse the principle behind the amendment, but I am not sure that one can legislate for good management practice in schools; that is something that good heads, teachers and governors are doing anyway. If we want them to be more open to the views of pupils, we should encourage good management practice. I do not think that the amendment would deliver a framework that would achieve that. It would be better to invest more effort in guiding and training

teachers, heads and governors to think about the best ways of involving their pupils.

The hon. Lady raised the matter of pupils as governors. Having sat on governing bodies, there is a lot to be said for them taking on board more clearly the views of pupils. If I have a reservation about the concept of pupils as governors, it is that commercial and confidential information is raised at meetings, which would require a pupil governor to be in and out like a yo-yo. Topics such as disciplinary matters and matters related to staff pay simply could not be discussed, even with the most responsible of pupil governors, without carrying the risk of sensitive information flying round the school at high speed. That is why I believe that pupil governors ultimately could never work. However, the involvement of pupils in parts of governors' meetings or discussions would be an asset and should be taken on board by heads and governing bodies. With those comments, I applaud the amendment and hope that Ministers will take into account the principle behind it.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The Liberal Democrats also strongly support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Don Valley, and I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell about the hon. Lady's support for and commitment to education, which shine out in everything she says and does.

My sadness about the amendments is that they do not go far enough; they are timid. I accept the hon. Lady's reasons for that timidity, but most of the schools that want to operate such inclusive policies are already doing so. The amendments will not make a blind bit of difference. Those schools in which students are still regarded as the enemy or an inconvenience should be targeted. I have often heard teachers saying that school is great on Baker or in-service training days when the kids are not there. That is partly because there is not the engagement with young people that the hon. Members for Don Valley and for Epsom and Ewell want.

I remember disregarding young people's voices at great cost. I once filled in an exam paper when I was incredibly bored while invigilating. I filled in all sorts of strange answers and put a fictitious pupil's name at the top. I wrote at the bottom, ''I will give you £5, sir, if I get a good mark''. Little did I know that a student of that name had just arrived in the school. The outraged head of science took the pupil and the offending paper to see the head, and severe retribution was exacted on the young person while he protested in great innocence that he did not even sit the exam. That was a salutary reminder that we should always listen to children. I confess that it was many months afterwards before I admitted to what I had done. As the family had just arrived from Kenya, I saw the young man and his parents to reassure them that that was not the way in which the British did things.

With that slight aside, I must say that the amendment is serious. The United Nations convention on the rights of the child makes it clear that the voices of young people should be heard. With the code of practice following the Special Education

Needs and Disability Act 2001, the Government enshrined the right of young people to be heard whenever we make provision for them. If that is possible for young people with special needs and disabilities, it should be right for every child. I support the amendment and hope that the Government will examine it, and ensure that the Bill gives young people those rights.

As a party, we are committed to extending the right to vote to young people at 16. We cannot hope to engage young people in the politic general without giving them real power, which means giving them a vote. Sadly, waiting until young people are 18, by which time they are engaged in many other activities, means that many are turned off totally. I hope that if the Government do not accept this amendment, they will propose others to enshrine in legislation the right of children to be heard in matters that concern them.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

We have had an interesting discussion. My hon. Friend the member for Don Valley has achieved remarkable consensus on both sides of the Committee on her amendment and her contribution to the matters under discussion. The debate is important and will continue outside the Committee. We recognise that the voice of young people is an important one, to which we do well to listen. We need the perspectives and fresh thinking of young people on debates about our education system and other issues.

In November, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who is the Minister for Young People in the Children and Young People's Unit, published the core principles that we will follow to ensure that children and young people are involved in the planning and delivery of the policies and services that affect them. All Departments have given a public commitment to those principles and will implement action plans to encourage more opportunities for the involvement of children. My hon. Friend is the first Minister for Young People and will lead that brief. All Departments will be helped and challenged in that work by the Children and Young People's Unit.

We are determined that we should lead the way in that area, not least because we have a good track record on which to build. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley referred to the introduction of citizenship into the curriculum from next September. We want to encourage the greater discussion of issues that affect young people, and to see greater involvement of young people through participation in communities and public life. We funded the School Councils UK's production of a secondary schools' toolkit to support students' active participation in the decisions that affect them through school councils and to build on the successful version that exists at primary level. That model is working well, and we want to see more such positive and effective examples.

I was going to set out some of the steps that we have taken to increase children's and young people's participation, but I may not in view of the time. We referred to that participation in the Green Paper last year and in the White Paper in September. In the

White Paper, we referred especially to the way in which Ofsted proposes to consult children more in reviewing and inspecting what happens at a particular school. Ofsted has issued questionnaires since September that seek the views of sixth-form pupils, and it is proposing to extend the use of questionnaires to all secondary-school pupils as an automatic part of the review process.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the member for Don Valley will welcome that change. She mentioned that Save the Children has been active and has made a valuable contribution to these matters. In November, we held a consultation day on the White Paper with Save the Children. I found that meeting useful, and several interesting lessons emerged from it; not least the concern of children and young people about the problem of challenging behaviour in schools and the need to focus on supporting those who behave badly so that they behave better. It was interesting how important that theme was in the thinking of young people on the proposed changes.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley will recognise that we are determined and committed to the participation of pupils in issues that affect their school and in the wider debate about policy. The question is what is the most effective way to make that happen. Schools should be free to choose the best way in which to do that. The extent to which pupils are involved in decisions on, for example, what part school councils will play in the delivery of citizenship will depend on the circumstances of the school. Primary, secondary and special schools will be different. It is right that young people should be consulted on the matters that are important to them, but imposing a statutory obligation is not the best way to achieve that. My hon. Friend gave a great example of the seven-year-old who commented on some proposals. If the school and its governors were breaking the rules, real problems would ensue. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment. She made an important point, and the debate will continue outside the Committee.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I am glad that we have had this debate, and I agree that it should continue outside the Committee. Young people's rights are important, and I am open to persuasion on voting at 16. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

It being One o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June 2001] and the order of the Committee [11, 13 and 18 December 2001], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Question put, That clauses 27 to 35, schedule 2 and clause 36 stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 5.

Clause 37 - Interpretation of Chapter 1

Schedule 3 - AMENDMENTS OF PART 2 OF SCHOOL STANDARDS

Standing Committee G

Clause 39 - Determination of specified budgets of LEA

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Griffiths.

I beg to move amendment No. 206, in clause 39, page 25, line 4, after 'budget', insert 'for a financial year'.

This is a purely technical amendment to remedy a defect in the drafting. In clause 39, after the phrase ''LEA budget'' and ''schools budget'' in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection 45A there is the phrase ''for a financial year''. That phrase has been missed out after the expression ''individual schools budget'' in paragraph (3). Amendment No. 206 rectifies that omission, to bring paragraph (3) into line with the preceding two paragraphs. It also allows the reader to make sense of what is being referred to.

Amendment agreed to.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 267, in clause 39, page 25, line 8, at end insert—

'( ) provide for information to be collected by the Secretary of State including the annual per capita revenue budget of each maintained school and specific elements of school funding relating to curriculum changes or other initiatives of the Secretary of State.'.

I join the Minister in welcoming you back to the Chair, Mr. Griffiths. I am sure that you are as delighted to be with us as we are to have you as Chairman.

The amendment, like the previous Government amendment, is largely technical and is intended purely to remedy an oversight in the Bill as drafted.

The Government want to impose new requirements on local education authorities and schools seeking to take powers relating to a school's budget and to how LEAs choose to distribute the funds available to them among schools within their area. I hope that the Minister agrees that the proposal would improve the climate of knowledge and information available to parents and schools and inform Ministers of the reality of school funding. The amendment would allow a new power providing for information to be collected by the Secretary of State, including the annual per capita revenue budget of each maintained school, and specific elements of school funding relating to curriculum changes or other initiatives of the Secretary of State.

The Minister, who is a bright and able man, will already have sniffed out the motivation behind the amendment. He will have realised that there is considerable anxiety among hon. Members and in schools about the discrepancy between Ministers'

intentions to do good and to assist schools in their endeavours—as a generous man, I am prepared to accept their positive intentions—and what actually happens. There are two clear examples. First, there is the position of numerous former grant-maintained schools, which, as the Minister will know, were given a pledge when their grant maintained status was taken away in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 that their funding would be protected and that the Government's intention was to level up the funding of other schools. That has not happened in practice and, however much Ministers tell me that education and schools expenditure has increased during the past four years, numerous schools in the country—indeed, in my constituency—currently have a smaller annual revenue budget than they had in 1997. As the Minister will understand, that is causing various difficulties.

Whenever I have raised those concerns with Ministers, sometimes through written questions, I have frequently been amazed at the lack of information that Ministers appear to have on the subject. One recent example that may be in the Minister's mind concerns schools with sixth forms after the new sixth form curriculum was introduced. Ministers rightly accepted that making such widespread changes to the curriculum would result in costs to schools, including for public examinations, and have staffing, resource and teaching material implications. They made available some money in the first and second years of implementation to cover the changed burden of cost that would fall upon them. However, as the Minister will know, if only from anecdotal evidence, the reality in much of the country is that the additional funds, earmarked by Ministers and said to be available for a specific purpose, were not passed on to schools. I suspect that the Minister has some sympathy with the bones of my point, given that the purpose of clause 39 is to deal with instances in which local education authorities do not deal properly with the schools that they fund.

By way of illustration, I will read the response that I received to a written question that I tabled in October. I asked the

''Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate she has made of the number of schools with sixth forms which have received no funding from their local education authority for the new sixth form curriculum in each of the last two years.''

The response, which came from the Under-Secretary, said:

''No such estimate is available. Decisions on distribution were a matter for each local authority in the light of local priorities.''—[Official Report, 15 October 2001; Vol. 372, c. 992W.]

There is simply no point in announcing that a sum of money is available to schools for a specific purpose if that money can be spent in any way whatsoever. It is dangerous if Ministers introduce important and far-sweeping changes, perhaps to the curriculum as in that example, but no funding is provided to schools for implementation. It is a serious problem that has affected the ability of schools to implement the curriculum changes and had a serious affect on wider budget planning and staffing situations for other year groups in maintained schools.

The Minister should at least be sympathetic to the amendment's objective. I hope that he will accept that it would make provision for his Department to be informed of the budgets for schools.

The amendment is not prescriptive: it would not oblige LEAs, schools forums or schools to disburse funds in a particular way. It would remedy a situation in which Ministers are apparently ignorant of what happens to schools' funding. I am sure that the Minister—an assiduous man—will assure me that he intends to do something about the black hole in the Government's knowledge of schools throughout the country, specifically the former grant maintained schools and changes in the sixth form curriculum. I hope that the Government will obtain that information and treat it as important in informing any decisions that might be taken under the wider powers provided by the clause.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said about the amendment. I was surprised to hear that he believes that some schools in his constituency have a smaller revenue budget now than they did in 1997. I should be grateful if he would send me details of those schools. The amount paid to every local education authority for its schools has increased substantially over the past four years, and will increase significantly this year, next year and the year after. We have also successfully increased the proportion of those budgets that is delegated to schools. I will examine with great interest the information that the hon. Gentleman sends to me.

In moving the amendment, the hon. Gentleman may not have taken account of our existing powers, for example, under section 52 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The section 52 budget statement shows how much transitional funding is received by each former grant maintained school, so that information is already provided. Section 52 requires LEAs to produce annual budget and outturn statements containing such information as the Secretary of State may prescribe, and clause 42 of the Bill enables us to require schools to produce accounts containing such information as we may prescribe.

The extra funding for sixth forms was a local decision, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have taken the amount we provided for sixth forms into account in determining the amount transferred to the learning and skills council for each area for 2002–03. That funding is clearly earmarked for sixth forms under the new arrangements.

In the light of what the hon. Gentleman said, I hope that he will welcome several elements of the Bill. I am sure that he would welcome the power of the Secretary of State to set a minimum schools' budget, which we will debate shortly. I hope that he would also welcome the introduction of the schools forums, which will provide a forum in every local education authority for discussion about budgets and other matters concerning the schools and the LEA.

Clause 42 would, in theory, enable us to require schools to provide details of funding they have received and expenditure that they have incurred in connection with specific initiatives. It would not be reasonable to do that; the Opposition have rightly raised some concerns about the work load in schools. It would be an enormous task if every school had to report the amount of money that it spent in relation to every curriculum change or every other initiative of the Secretary of State. I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would not be appropriate to impose that additional burden.

We have simplified the standards fund in a way that we estimate will save a great deal of time: 2.6 million hours a year across all the schools, or two and half weeks of someone's time in a typical school. We have significantly reduced the amount of paper that we now send to schools. We have made a pledge that 1,000 more trained bursars will be appointed during the lifetime of this Parliament. However, to impose an additional requirement of this magnitude would not be appropriate or helpful.

The Bill already includes powers to collect all the information that is necessary. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would make sense to collect the detailed information that he has in mind. There is a principle that many of the detailed decisions about where funding should be allocated should appropriately be made at local level. That is the principle that informed many of the changes that we have made. Certainly, it underpins much of this part of the Bill. I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees with it, but it places a limit on the amount of prescription that should be imposed centrally about precisely how each element of funding is spent. I think that we have got the balance about right and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the Minister. His response has been helpful. He said that the burden that the amendment would place on schools would be too great, but he also alluded to the balance that must be struck. The balance is between the burden of reporting and administration and the new powers that the Minister seeks to take. If Ministers do not have detailed knowledge of what money is finding its way into schools, they will not be able to make informed judgments when exercising their new powers in the clauses to direct the activities of LEAs with regard to the schools' budget.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I just want to make a point that I perhaps should have made earlier. In clause 42 we are looking at the introduction of consistent financial reporting, which will allow us to benchmark in a way that has not been possible in the past, and to compare the amounts that are being spent in different schools on different things. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's earlier description of a black hole.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

My description of a black hole applied to the existing situation and Ministers' apparent lack of knowledge about the money that is finding its way to schools. If the financial reporting requirements under clause 42 would give Ministers precisely the

information that I seek for them in my amendment, it would give me considerable comfort.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Is the hon. Gentleman arguing, as the Conservative party did at the last general election, that there should be a national per capita formula for all children in all schools that would clarify where the money comes from and where it goes. Does that remain the policy, and is that behind the amendment? If it is, there is a clear contradiction between what the Government want, what the Liberal Democrats want and what the Opposition want. Does he believe that, even in an LEA such as his own, there is a need for someone to determine that schools and children who are greatly disadvantaged in accessing the education system should receive more than those who have particular advantages, such as the students who go to the grammar schools in his area?

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am wary of going too wide of the amendment, and we may have a constructive debate on another related amendment that my hon. Friends and I tabled. I will simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that if we had implemented a national funding formula for schools, it would have made provision for those from disadvantaged areas or backgrounds to attract a higher weighting. Therefore, the two points are in no way inconsistent. The hon. Gentleman would have had no worries about that issue under a Conservative Government, who sadly the nation are missing.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am enormously relieved.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I know that the hon. Gentleman is relieved.

The Minister's response to my amendment suggested that existing legislation requires that transitional funding should be reported. Part of the difficulty that arises is that transitional funding may be reported and Ministers may be aware of it. However, if they are not aware of the overall funding picture, they have only part of the information that they need to make a decision.

The Minister said that schools' funding for the sixth form curriculum would inform the LSC funding. Ministers have told me that they do not know what that funding is, and so I cannot see how the Minister can maintain that that information will inform the funding decisions for the learning and skills councils. I would be interested to hear how that funding has been decided. I understand that the baseline figure for the sixth form funding under the learning and skills council is based on last year's funding picture. However, some schools have received no new funding to take account of the increased responsibilities and activities necessary under the new sixth form curriculum. If last year's funding is taken as the baseline, Ministers will be locking in a pattern of underfunding for such schools.

There are real questions that need some answers. I may have sympathy with some of the objectives behind the clauses, but I am keen that Ministers should exercise them in a well-informed, responsible and transparent way. The clauses leave open the danger that Ministers may be forced to make decisions in the

dark according to criteria that are not public and that have not been debated or agreed outside ministerial offices.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) asked me whether the intention behind my amendment was to introduce a national funding formula. It is not. My intention is simply to ensure that Ministers can obtain the necessary information if they are to exercise the powers responsibly. The Minister sought to reassure me that that information would be available. I hope that it will be.

I am grateful for the Minister's offer to examine figures from schools in my constituency. I will not detain the Committee with local matters but will provide the information for him. On balance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 219, in page 25, line 22, leave out—

'or the authority's schools forum'.

We now come to contentious proposals and sensible amendments to overcome the problems. I think that the Minister accepts that it is difficult to debate amendment No. 219 without having first debated the make-up and purpose of the schools forums. Thus, if I stray into discussion of membership, it is only because it is important to consider it in discussing the amendment.

By including schools forums in the clause, the Government are trying to achieve what the Conservative party did not achieve in the last election. They are trying to bypass the autonomy of local authorities and respond to head teachers and governors in a way that suits their purpose. I agreed with many of the Minister's comments on the previous amendments, which were about reducing needless bureaucracy to do with accounting systems in schools and local authorities. The school standards fund is a good example: there has been a huge reduction in the work load. That was a good Government initiative. However, we now have a Government pledge to reduce bureaucracy by introducing a new layer of bureaucracy into the system. Fundamentally, that is what the measure will achieve.

I defy the Minister to name a single local authority in England or Wales that does not have reasonable or excellent consultation arrangements with its heads and governors. If we refer to Ofsted's examination of local authorities—I accept that it has not inspected all local authorities—or the Audit Commission, which supported the inspection of local authorities, we find that 75 per cent. of head teachers and governors are satisfied with the consultation that they have with their local authority. That is a remarkable achievement.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comment. In broad terms, most governors and head teachers may be satisfied, but that is largely because the need for consultation is relatively limited in most of their lives. I assure him that many LEAs have a terrible record of consultation

in cases where there are major developments; for example, the London borough of Merton, with which I have been involved for the past four years, announced that schools were due to be closed as part of a reorganisation plan at a meeting of heads of all schools in the borough. It did not even take the trouble to talk to heads of schools individually. The overall figures to which the hon. Gentleman referred mask some seriously bad practice.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comment, because I did not stress that every local authority, school or business is not perfect; that is obvious. The inspections by Ofsted and the Audit Commission made it clear that there is much cause for concern in a small number of authorities. The answer is not to create a new layer of bureaucracy but to sort out the problem. Giving every local authority a duty in legislation to consult heads and governors about x, y and z is perfectly reasonable. However, going to the nth degree by creating schools forums, for which I can find no justification from anyone, is overcooking the egg, if hon. Members will pardon the expression.

The amendment is designed to make the Committee consider a key issue for which the new schools forums will have responsibility or a responsibility. In proposed new section 45A(4)(c) of the 1998 Act, one duty is to

''enable any prescribed determination—''

on school budgets—

''to be made by the Secretary of State or the authority's schools forum.''

However, the regulations do not say that. Nothing in them makes that clear, yet the Bill clearly states that the schools forum can have responsibility for determining the budget.

Let us consider the make-up of the schools forum. Not every school will be represented. Even in the largest authorities such as mine, out of, say, 350 schools—many big metropolitan boroughs have that many schools or more—50 is the maximum number that can be represented. A quarter of places can be reserved for members other than schools, which leaves about 38. Two places are reserved for special schools, which takes the number down to 36. Those places are divided up according to the number of pupils in each school—primary, middle, secondary or special—which then get a number of places determined by the number of youngsters in the sector. The formula to assemble 36 head teachers or governors to represent those schools is complicated and bureaucratic.

Before the Minister contradicts me, I accept that that group of people will not make the determination in all circumstances, as the Secretary of State will not intervene in all circumstances. However, if those 50 people have the responsibility, as the Bill says, how will they make the decision?

The first responsibility of every governor and head teacher whom I have met is to their school. I have often argued to governors that we should consider our family of schools and how we distribute resources only

to be given short shrift by the chairman, who says that they are elected to look after their school and no one else's. When people go to the forum to debate these issues, their main responsibilities and liabilities will lie very much with their own organisations. What is to prevent a group of them in the forum from getting together to carve things up on their behalf?

The amendment would eliminate the role of schools forums in determining the level of schools' budgets at individual school level. It would mean that forums could advise on individual budgets, but could not have an authoritarian mandatory role. I hope that the Minister will see the sense in that reasonable request and respond to it in his usual positive and supportive way.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Happy new year, Mr. Griffiths. I apologise for my absence this morning.

I have seldom heard such common sense from a Liberal Democrat, but on this occasion, there was a modest amount of common sense in what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I was really good this morning.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Speak for yourself.

It is made more difficult because the Government have not yet published the draft regulations—[Interruption.] Sorry, I understand that they have been published, but I have not yet had a chance to read those draft regulations on the composition of schools forums that the Government have so kindly provided. However, I want to support the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough.

It is difficult to envisage how a school can be both effectively governed by governors and involved in decisions at the executive level about the distribution of resources. It is also difficult to understand why the power is necessary for many local authorities. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) that some are defective in respect of consultation with governors and head teachers. On the whole, however, local authorities are quite good at such consultation. The difficulty arises for a minority, which might not contribute the right amount, might lack the capacity for effective organisation of the education service or might not have the political will to take effective decisions in consultation with governors and head teachers.

What is the need for this power given to governors and head teachers collectively and what will be its consequences? In some circumstances, a majority on the schools forum could get together to outvote a minority. Surely it would be fairer for elected local authority representatives to take the difficult decisions between the majority and the minority. Is the process necessary for all local education authorities? In excluding the common council of the City of London and the council of the Isles of Scilly, the Government have already accepted that it is not necessary for all.

What should be the threshold? For the Government, it is one school. Why should an authority such as Rutland, with a small number of

schools, be governed by an arrangement in which a school instead of a local authority can take a decision?

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

A further point arises. One important issue seldom properly addressed is cross-border educational planning. More commonality of issue often arises with schools just across LEA borders than with schools on different sides of the same educational area. If the Minister is going to impose mechanisms, should he not provide for cross-border dialogue as well?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I have considerable sympathy with that view, especially when a border is artificial. Some borders are clear and defined; others—particularly in south London—have huge cross-border flows. About a third of the London borough of Southwark's secondary population is educated outside the borough and about a quarter of Lambeth's secondary population is educated within Southwark. Some local authorities differ about whether sixth forms are located within their areas. Oxfordshire has an interesting history in that respect: some parts have a three-tier system, others a two-tier one. The interests of middle schools would not necessarily be recognised by the majority of schools in particular areas.

The Government have taken insufficient account of those issues in drafting the amendment. Even accepting the principle—and I am unsure that I do—that local authorities should be overridden, we must ask more about the detail.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I can give the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) some assurances on their concerns. We all agree that schools should be consulted on financial matters. The National Association of Head Teachers certainly believes that there is a problem here. It recently carried out a survey of consultation arrangements, which concluded that a significant proportion of heads were dissatisfied with the consultation on financial matters. The sunny picture painted by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is not the experience of head teachers.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The Minister and his Department spend millions commissioning Ofsted and the Audit Commission to carry out this work, and the Minister now quotes in defence the National Association of Head Teachers' survey. I find that ludicrous.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

We take notice of evidence wherever it arises. The important organisation to which I referred believes that there is a problem. The hon. Gentleman argued that no one envisages any problem, but that is not the case. We all support consultation with schools on financial matters and the provisions provide the mechanism to introduce it.

Schools forums are not new in principle: some authorities already have fine consultative arrangements, but we want all schools to benefit from that approach. Good practice benefits all schools. When we reach clause 41, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will set out the detail of our approach to schools forums. Presently, I disagree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough that it is acceptable for bodies to comprise more than 50 people. As my hon. Friend will

explain more fully, it is appropriate to set a maximum size for the schools forums.

We want the forums to play a significant part in local funding arrangements for schools. We want them to have mainly, but not entirely, an advisory role. The size of the school's budget and the nature of most centrally retained expenditure items will remain decisions for the LEA to take. The schools forums will not have a role in determining the overall size of the authority's schools budget, still less the size of an individual school's budget share. That should provide an important element of reassurance about the concerns expressed by the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and for Isle of Wight. Many spending decisions—determining priorities for the use of the overall delegated budget, for example—remain for individual schools to take. However, with respect to the advantages of delegation or central retention, only a limited range of items should be decided collectively through the forum.

I am in the happy position this afternoon of having distributed the draft regulations. I am not always in such a happy position, but I am now. In fact, two sets of draft regulations relating to schools forums have been circulated. Not every member of the Committee may have read to the end of both. The heading of schedule 1 is ''Regulation X: classes or descriptions of planned expenditure which may be deducted from the schools budget of a local education authority''.

In other words, it is a list of things that the LEA can retain centrally. We propose to add four new items to that list, which is set out in regulations: school meals for primary and special schools, library services for those schools, museum services, and licences and subscriptions. As a result, the forum will be able to decide whether those four items should be delegated to each school. That is the extent of the decision-making powers that we propose should be conferred on the schools forums. It is a much narrower decision-making power than hon. Members suspected.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Can the Minister confirm that there would have to be a resolution under affirmative procedure in both Houses to extend those powers and to include other items?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I cannot confirm that. However, it would require new regulations, not those that have been circulated to the Committee and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, those would be dealt with in the normal way.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

Just to clarify that, the Secretary of State would have the right under the legislation to assign broad-ranging powers to an education forum without coming back to Parliament, and to re-deploy many of the LEAs' supervisory functions to the schools forums.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The Secretary of State has the power to propose new regulations that would be published and consulted on in the normal way and, as we have discussed several times, if hon. Members have concerns about those regulations, we would consider any request for a debate. That is the appropriate way

to handle such a change to the proposed list. The decision-making power is restricted and is consistent with the character of the proposed schools forums.

Schools can already opt individually for delegation on school meals. The schools forum is in the best position to judge whether schools can benefit from further delegation, and the decision to delegate should be left to it. This is a modest exercise that allows schools under each LEA to have a greater say in their affairs. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that the move is helpful, sensible and welcome. I hope that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will withdraw his amendment.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am not satisfied with the Minister's response. I fully intend to press the amendment to a Division. I do not have huge difficulties with what the Minister is trying to achieve, but I object to the ham-fisted way in which he is going about it. The final insult was the response to my question about whether the forum could have extended powers. The Minister said that it would not require primary legislation, but could be done by regulation. Yet again, another aspect of the Bill leaves hidden powers. As I have said before, the Minister's assurance that we can pray in aid against the regulations and have a debate on them is a hollow gesture. Whether there is a debate, when it will take place and how much time will be devoted to it is entirely in the Minister's gift. It is totally different from the scrutiny of a Standing Committee and a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

I do not belittle the survey by the National Association of Head Teachers. It is right to highlight what it sees as difficulties. However, if a group of head teachers were put in a room together and asked whether they were satisfied with what the local authority was giving them, they would not be satisfied, even if the amount were doubled. The primary heads will say that the secondary heads get too much; the middle school heads will say that the primary heads get too much and so on. Their job is to argue for as much as they can. However, if those heads were asked whether they wanted a group of them to be selected and for them to decide for the rest, they would go ballistic. That is the last thing that they want. They can at least attack the elected members of the local authority. They could hardly start to attack each other. Nevertheless, I take the point.

The other issue with which the Minister has not come to terms is the introductory clauses in part 1, which were all about innovation and allowing LEAs and schools to innovate. This is not innovating at all. St. John Fisher, a brilliant Roman Catholic high school in my area, has its own school meals service, as does St. Aidans. They do so because they feel that it is the best way to deliver the sort of service that they want. That is what I call innovation. In the north Yorkshire dales, however, where the primary schools mostly have fewer than 50 pupils, one would get a totally different response from head teachers if they were asked to make meals for their pupils. Yet the forum will make those decisions.

The Minister must recognise that when groups of heads are put together in the way envisaged, it will be recipe for dispute. The school that has invested heavily in its library is hardly likely to want to put its hand up to give more money to other schools for libraries. Things do not work like that. I am sad that the Minister sees it that way. Local authorities are undergoing a heart bypass here. We will tell these forums, whose powers can increase, that a Labour Minister is happy for an unelected group of people to make decisions about budgets. Labour Members should recognise that we are asking local authorities what is the point of them raising £388 million, as they did last year, to put into school budgets when they will not have authority over how it is spent.

We are going down a dangerous slope without justification. Yes, there should be consultation and local authorities should be made more accountable to their schools, although it is difficult to imagine how they could be made more accountable than at the moment, but the idea of a schools forum is one step too far. It is clearly an idea that was provided by the No. 10 policy unit and the Secretary of State is desperately trying to find a justification for it.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman said that he welcomes the idea of making LEAs more accountable to their schools, but that that is not possible. His perception is not shared by many schools. Schools generally will agree that it is helpful to increase the amount of consultation on financial matters. That is essentially the role that the forums will play.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Consult, yes.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Consultation will constitute most of the forums' activity, but there will also be decision-making powers in restricted matters. It will be possible for the Secretary of State to promulgate new regulations in the future to extend that list, but I should make it clear that it would not be possible under this primary legislation to make regulations to allow the forums to determine the size of a school's budget or its individual budget share. That was the hon. Gentleman's central concern in moving the amendment, although we have moved on to other concerns, and I hope that I have addressed that first one.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I have finished.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I wanted to ask the Minister—he may speak again—what he meant when he said that the forum will not be able to determine a school's individual budget share. We understand that forums will not be able to decide that one school should receive X pounds more or Y pounds less, because that would be determining a school's individual budget share. However, the adjustment of the value of elements in the formula, or the introduction of additional elements, may have the consequence of changing a school's individual budget share. We know from local authorities that they sometimes introduce new elements with the intention of changing a school's individual budget share. If the Minister speaks again, that is one point on which I hope he will be able to help us.

Perhaps this is for a later debate, but the Minister has not responded to my point about the effective representation of different kinds of secondary school. A local authority may have a two-tier system in the bulk of its area but a three-tier system in places where the middle schools are deemed to be secondary schools. The majority of secondary schools may be 11–18, but some will be 8–13 or 13–18 middle schools that are deemed to be secondary. The proposed system will put them all in one pot and call them secondary schools. However, it would be possible for middle schools not to be represented in the forum, even though it would be entitled to make decisions that affected their funding.

Similarly, a local authority area could contain only a few schools with sixth forms—Hampshire is an example. It would be possible for all the secondary representatives on the forum to represent schools without sixth forms, because the only definition included in the draft regulations is ''secondary schools''. The Minister would agree that such a forum would not be representative, so would it have the right to take the decisions that he is proposing in the clause?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the forum could take decisions about the formula that is used for determining a school's individual budget share. The answer is no, and I refer him to the wording of new subsection (4)(a), which makes it clear that we are debating

''classes or descriptions of expenditure which are authorised or required to be deducted from an authority's schools budget''.

In other words, we are talking about which parts are or are not delegated. That is the context within which we are debating the amendment, so the forum does not and cannot have the wider powers that he is concerned about.

When we get to clause 41, we will further debate the membership of schools forums, but I will say now that we expect that sensible decisions will be made to ensure that schools are properly represented on the forums. The hon. Gentleman may have noted in the last set of papers circulated to the Committee that we will issue guidance on school forums, which will include points on membership. That should reassure him.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

We have had a good debate, and the Minister satisfied one of our prime concerns. However, I think that he was just about to confirm that the cost of the exercise will come out of every school's budget. It will be a huge, bureaucratic exercise, and the costs will include providing meals for people at lunch times and travel and other expenses. The small primary school in north Yorkshire will have to find a share of that cost, whereas at present the LEA provides the service and pays for it from its retained element at no cost to the schools. The Minister shakes his head, but that is the reality.

At present, the cost of the consultative processes that local authorities carry out—according to the Audit Commission and Ofsted, 75 per cent. of schools say that they do it well—comes out of the authorities'

retained share of the revenue support grant. Those costs will now be passed on. Sadly, Conservative Members do not see that as a major issue, but it is, so we will press the amendment to a vote.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The official Opposition have considerable reservations about the schools forum model, and not least about the funding for schools forums, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. That is covered in a later amendment that I have tabled.

My initial reaction to the hon. Gentleman's amendment was that schools forums surely must have a function. I am slightly agnostic as to whether the amendment makes sense. However, having listened to his comments and to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, I do not think that the Minister has adequately explained why the provision is necessary. My hon. Friend asked about representation on the schools forums and possible imbalances between different types of schools, but the Minister did not clarify the point satisfactorily. Therefore, I am minded to urge my hon. Friends to support the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough if he presses the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 220, in page 25, line 23, leave out 'end of January' and insert '15th February'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 192, in page 25, line 23, after 'year', insert:

'or not more than 21 days after the publication of the teachers' pay settlement, whichever is the later,'.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Having narrowly lost the argument on the previous amendment for the time being—we shall return to it on Report—I hope that I can persuade the Minister of the sense of this amendment. If he cannot accept it, I hope that he will at least think about it.

The amendment would leave out 'end of January', which is the current deadline set by the Government, and insert '15th February'. Although allowing an extra two weeks might not seem terribly important, I hope to persuade the Minister that it is. The amendment would bring the timetable required for the so-called reserved power into line with the existing DTLR timetable for setting local authority budgets, which seems to be a reasonable proposition. The amendment would also allow the schools budget to be set after variables such as the teachers pay award and revenue support grant settlement are known.

One of the great bugbears for those of us who have been involved in local authorities, and for heads and governors of schools, is securing budget certainty as early as possible. I recognise that the present Government have tried hard to create certainty for schools, particularly in the three-year settlements. They have also recognised that schools need certainty about budgets in order to appoint staff and carry out initiatives. The amendment would provide a wonderful opportunity to enable some cross-departmental thinking on the setting of school budgets.

Local authorities are likely to have received their indicative RSG allocations before Christmas, and once they have, they undergo the traditional to-ing and fro-ing with the Department. Despite the Deputy Prime Minister's statement that no one would be listened to, that has not been the reality—thank goodness—and many local authorities, including my own, have made representations to the Department. This year, the Government accepted that there were some glaring errors in what was proposed, and local authorities eventually secured changes. It is not normally until mid-January that that process is completed. During that time there is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing as treasurers and elected members decide how to allocate the budget.

One of the most crucial tasks left to local government is the annual round of budgets, and hon. Members will know that a variation of about a quarter of 1 per cent. in one of the variables can make a significant difference in what is passed on to schools in their budget share. The teachers pay settlement is not known until the end of January or early February. I accept that that creates a difficulty: I would like the settlement to be resolved by the end of December of the previous year. It would be far more sensible to include the School Teachers Pay Review Board's recommendation—and the Government's reasons for supporting or denying its recommendation—in the final RSG so that everything could be wrapped up together.

Currently, the RSG is given and then there is some to-ing and fro-ing. After that, local authorities have to guess the outcome of the teachers' and the manual workers' pay settlement, although that has become slightly easier because of the single status agreement. At least a plethora of different organisations do not have to be managed at one time, but the situation is difficult and much of the information is not known until late January or early February.

It is nonsense to tell local authorities that they have a certain amount to spend and two weeks later to say, ''This is what the teachers' pay settlement will be. We have allocated 2.4 per cent for you, as last year, but we shall implement the teachers' pay settlement of 3.5 per cent.'' At that point, unless authorities have huge reserves to meet the additional pay settlement—schools often have greater reserves than the local authority, but I shall come to that later—they have to reduce the schools' budget share, which immediately affects schools.

I have given two reasons why the Government should accept at least the spirit of the amendment, and I accept that they will need to think about it. The third element is the involvement of the Learning and Skills Council. Most hon. Members' postbags will be full of letters from heads of schools with sixth forms, who say that they were given a real-terms funding guarantee for two years in respect of the LSC, but that they are not getting it.

Some authorities spent less than the £2,600 that the LSC gives, and it is starting to claw back that money from schools to make up the deficit. They were allocated only what they were spending. Schools with additional numbers of sixth formers—particularly because 2000, not 2001, was the baseline figure—that were spending £3,400 or £3,500 now have only £2,600 to spend, which is the new learning and skills element. I do not want to get into that debate, but it is an important factor in the final allocation to schools. The LSC has announced that it will be 2003–04, which will be its first full year with all its costs under control when it will be able to take some decisions, before it will give schools their allocations and local authorities the amounts that are being clawed back. That is an unholy mess.

With the amendment, the Government have an opportunity, instead of creating a mythical date at the end of January that does not meet any of the other requirements, to set a date at the end point when all the information is available to local authorities so that they can provide a school's budget.

I accept that if we went down the road suggested by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West everything could be decided from Sanctuary house or the No. 10 policy unit, and money could be allocated quite easily. Fortunately, however, the Minister is a decent chap, and the Secretary of State is even more decent. They assured the north of England conference on Friday that that is not their intention and that local authorities will continue to play a pivotal role, and I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State say that. I therefore ask the Government to use this opportunity to do something that everyone is crying out for. Every head and local authority in the land would support them in providing a reasonable timetable. I am sure that the Minister has found my case compelling and will respond accordingly.

Adrian Bailey (Labour/Co-operative, West Bromwich West)

As this is the first time that I have spoken in a formal debate in this Committee, may I belatedly welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Griffiths? First I should declare a non-pecuniary interest. I am an honorary vice-chairman of the Local Government Association, an organisation that was often quoted on Second Reading. My views are totally my own. Indeed, I am not sure what the LGA's position is on this issue. I speak from the perspective of someone who was chair of finance of the large metropolitan authority of Sandwell between 1992 and 1997, and I am concerned about the clause. The amendment is well intentioned, but although it could solve some problems, it might create others. I should like to explore some of the issues with the Minister and seek some reassurances.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, quite legitimately, that local authorities have great difficulty in determining the level not just of their education budget, but of other budgets, within the timetable outlined here. The provisional revenue support grant settlement is normally given in early December. There follows a detailed consideration within local authorities of how that should be allocated department by department on the basis of their figures. As the hon. Gentleman said, January is usually taken up with a procession of chairs of finance to the Minister making special pleading for their local authority budget.

Incidentally, there was a far greater problem for local authority finance chairs between 1992 and 1997. None the less, the ever increasing demands upon the services from local authorities do not mean that those budget problems have gone away. Detailed consideration still has to be made of how the annual budget increases are to be allocated by the local authorities. Following those submissions, budgets are occasionally altered, but the local authorities will not normally know that until the end of January. It would therefore be difficult for them, within the time scale outlined, here to make the necessary adjustments to their budget in time to give the Minister a definitive education budget. I should like to hear the Minister's perspective on that.

I can see a further problem in amendment No. 220. By leaving it as late as 15 February, one runs into the timetable determined for the settlement of the council tax and in effect the final putting to bed of the budget. If that determination were not made until 15 February and if it were necessary for the Government to intervene and alter the education budget, the local authority would be hard put to make the necessary adjustments in other departmental budgets prior to the concluding date for the budget process, so leaving it until 15 February would cause a problem.

The problem is not theoretical or hypothetical: one year my local authority had its budget altered by £500,000. Given that education comprised 60 per cent. of the total budget, we are talking about a £300,000 adjustment—a significant figure—in my local authority's budget. If this scenario applies when the local authority has to provide the Minister with figures—by the end of January—it would cause a significant variance. The £500,000 was a cut, where another year saw a slight improvement, but the key point is that many authorities face this scenario and the deadline could present them with real problems. If ministerial intervention were necessary, different problems might arise. Other adjustments would then have to be made to local authority budgets.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case. Does he agree that the January deadline means that local authorities have to determine the education aspects of the budget significantly ahead of the end of January, before the final RSG settlement is announced? Would not the whole local authority budget have to dance to the tune of the education budget and everything fall in line?

Adrian Bailey (Labour/Co-operative, West Bromwich West)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Education usually comprises between 55 and 60 per

cent. of a metropolitan authority's budget. It would have to be determined ahead of other budgets, although in practice local authorities might well try to determine the lot at the same time. Either way, the deadline—and, indeed, the 15 February deadline—presents problems. Any adjustments will impact on other departmental budgets.

Will the Minister give an assurance that if adjustments to a local authority budget are made about the time that the figures for the education budget have to be provided, local authorities will not be penalised by any subsequent adjustment? The process must be flexible; otherwise it could make a serious impact on local authority budgets.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) whose first contribution to our proceedings has been worth while and helpful to both sides of the Committee. I am sure that we can look forward to further well-informed contributions from him.

Amendment No. 192 sits alongside amendment No. 220. Approaching the problem in a slightly different way should help shed light on some of the difficulties identified with amendment No. 220. That amendment was designed to replace one date set in stone with a more accommodating arrangement for local authorities in setting their budgets. The flaw is that it would have replaced one date set in stone with another, but I accept that the proposed date might have been more realistic. It was a genuine attempt to deal with the problem.

Amendment No. 192 is more flexible. It is designed not to fix a specific date, but to provide a minimum period following the settlement of teachers' pay, which must be known to the local authority and Ministers before such a determination can be made. In theory, the date 21 days after the publication of the teachers' pay settlement might fall before the end of January; that would allow Ministers to proceed according to their timetable. However, if the 21-day date falls after the end of January, the amendment would provide a little cushioning, which might allow some of the identified pitfalls to be avoided. In an earlier speech, possible relevant variables, other than the teachers' pay settlement, were identified. By fixing a degree of flexibility in the system, amendment No. 192 would go some way towards helping in that respect.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

May I try to help? The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West made a powerful contribution. He raised an issue that I considered when drafting the amendment and which I discussed with the Local Government Association. The problem with going later into February is that one falls foul of legislation that requires authorities to set their council tax. I have been told that 15 February is the latest one can go without falling foul of other legislation.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I have already made clear, I accept the principle of what he is trying to do. I hope that Ministers will reflect on the fact that both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments that are driving towards the same point, and share the concerns raised by the hon. Member for West

Bromwich, West. There are genuine problems with the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will reassure us that he has an alternative solution for tackling them.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Under the terms of the clause, we will ask local authorities to give us their proposed school budgets by the end of January. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West rightly said that, in some circumstances, there will not be what he termed a definitive budget by the end of January; I accept that. Like him, I was responsible for some years for a local authority budget. I think that he will agree that there will certainly be a proposed schools budget by the end of January. That is what the clause asks for. In fact, it is a more generous timetable than is now in place.

At present, we approach local authorities early in January and ask them to indicate whether they intend to passport the increase in the education budget. Our experience is that few authorities have difficulty getting that indication to the Department by the middle of January. As my hon. Friend and other members of the Committee know, local authorities prepare their budgets over a considerable period, and much of the work is done a good deal earlier than the dates that we are discussing.

Amendment No. 192 would mean that we would not normally receive information on a local authority's proposed schools budget until the end of February. Amendment No. 220 would make it somewhat earlier than that. However, I suggest that both dates would be too late for the process that is envisaged of setting a minimum budget for an authority's schools before the new financial year. That is the purpose of the measure, and we will debate it shortly. However, for local authorities to take into account the Secretary of State's intention, if she has one, to set up a minimum budget, they must be aware of it before the last date on which they can set their budget and council tax demands. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough commented on the date for precepting authorities, which I understand is the end of February. The hon. Gentleman should therefore accept that the Secretary of State cannot receive the information less than a fortnight before the budget and council tax for that authority is fixed.

We are not asking LEAs to tell us how much the teachers' pay award will cost them and their schools. There may be some variation. The pay for other support staff in schools is often not set until well into the financial year, and that uncertainty is part of the system. It is crucial for the Secretary of State, in making her judgment, to know whether authorities are passing on to their schools the increase in resources that we have made available for the schools budget. The initial proposed figure is made before Christmas, typically at the end of November. It is not unreasonable to expect LEAs to declare their intentions by the end of January. I re-emphasise that we are talking about the proposed budget. It may not have gone to members for a final decision by the end of January, but there will be a proposal, on which the clause requires LEAs to report.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The Minister is making a genuine attempt to deal with our concerns. We are clearly talking about a proposed budget that may not even have gone to elected members of the LEA at that point. Could the Secretary of State be making decisions based on a proposed budget that may bear little relation to the final agreed budget?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I do not think so. There may be subsequent variation, but those who have been involved in the processes would recognise that by the end of January most decisions are in place and the room for manoeuvre is limited, given the need to send out council tax bills and to give certainty to various parts of the organisation.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The exchange has been good, and we have raised some important issues. However, I am not satisfied with what the Minister is saying. He is describing an unholy mess, and the clause will make it worse. The bottom line is that if the Minister examined his own records he would know that the anxieties to which he has often referred are not an issue. Passporting is a classic example. He knows that last year only eight LEAs—I think that it is only eight—failed to passport all their education money into the budget. Of those, seven spent significantly above the standard spending assessment.

What the Government were trying to do in relation to the passporting regulations was nonsense, because the LEAs could have passported all the money but cut school budgets by 10 per cent. We must get real, rather than create mythical dragons that must be slain. Only one authority did not passport all the money, but spent less than the SSA, and it had just received a brilliant Ofsted report and a report from the Audit Commission that said that it was delivering—

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Which one?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I prefer not to say, because that is not my point. Passporting is not the big issue that the Government and the Minister think it is, because that dragon has already been slain. That was not a Welsh accusation, by the way, Mr. Griffiths.

We should abandon the idea of proposed and actual budgets. Schools need to know when the authority has completed its consultations, in which a school forum will now be involved. Once the consultations are concluded, the school requires to know the School Teachers Pay Review Board's recommendation. For most authorities, teachers' pay accounts for between 73 and 80 per cent. of the education budget. Once that amount is known, elected members can debate what the level of council tax will be and, ultimately, the level of resources allocated to schools. I prefer finality rather than lots of different processes. Authorities already have a process, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West pointed out, in which there is an elongated period of uncertainty between the provisional and the actual RSG. To extend that further would be unrealistic.

If the Minister will not agree to my proposals, despite the fact that the Local Government Association feel that my timetable is feasible and achievable, will he consider putting the STPRB conclusions back a month? That would allow local

authorities to have the STPRB results while they were debating their RSG. If they had that information, it would not matter whether the Minister wanted a draft or a final version by the end of January.

I shall not press the amendment to a Division, but the Minister should be realistic about the certainties that schools need and about his expectations of local authorities. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 - Power of Secretary of State to set

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 193, in page 25, line 38, leave out

'it appears to the Secretary of State that'

and insert:

', according to criteria prescribed by order under the affirmative resolution procedure,'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 269, in page 25, line 38, leave out

'it appears to the Secretary of State'

and insert

', according to a formula to be set out in regulations,'.

Amendment No. 266, in page 25, line 38, after 'circumstances', insert:

'having taken advice from the schools forum,'

.

Amendment No. 270, in page 25, line 44, at end insert:

'(1A) Regulations under this section may also specify a formula to calculate the minimum per pupil funding for each category of school as a proportion of the schools budget for a given local education authority. Where the minimum funding level is not reached for a school or category of schools the Secretary of State may require that funding should be increased to that level as a condition under section 45A(4)(b)(ii).'

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

This is a quartet of amendments, but more properly should be considered as two couplets, although I cast no doubt on the ordering of their selection.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

As long as they are rhyming ones.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

You ask too much of me, Mr. Griffiths. I shall deal with the second couplet first. Amendment No. 266 is a probing amendment to establish what the Minister thinks about the role of the schools forum, and the scope of its activities and role in advisory matters. In particular, it would extend the advisory role of the schools forum beyond what Ministers have in mind, which they say will inform decisions taken by local authorities. It would require that, under new section 45B, if the Secretary of State exercised the power to set a minimum schools budget for the LEA, he, too, should have regard to the views of the schools forum. I do not wish to labour the point. Why should the schools forum have a valued role in advising the local education authority on budgetary measures if it does not have the competence to advise the Secretary

of State on schools funding matters that relate to the locality?

Amendment No. 270 was tabled to tantalise the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, and he will be disappointed to know that it, too, is probing. It does not go anywhere near proposing the establishment of a national funding formula, which is what he would like, but it would set out a backstop on which schools could rely to provide a minimum share of the schools budget for each school or category of school. The way in which it would do that may not be close to Ministers' hearts. The Bill gives the Secretary of State unfettered discretion to decide on a minimum share, whereas the amendment would establish a formula by which a minimum budget share could be worked out.

I want to draw out the Minister's thinking on the overall level of the schools budget for an LEA area, and find out whether an important part of the ministerial decision-making process concerns the way in which that money is spent and divided between schools. Our earlier exchanges, which related to the timetabling for the decision-making process, might lead us to assume that he thinks that Ministers have an interest only in a global figure for a schools budget, but I want to draw out his thoughts a little further.

I now turn to the couplet that I suggested is more important. I am falling over myself to be helpful to Ministers and am offering them an à la carte menu. I am confident that they will accept the power of my argument that one or other of the amendments should be accepted. I leave it to them to decide which, and am happy to withdraw either if given appropriate assurances.

Amendment No. 193 is my preferred amendment. It would shift the definition of criteria for intervention away from the incredibly wide discretion that is allowed in new section 45B(1). The amendment would change that definition from what appears to be an entirely subjective decision-making process for the Secretary of State to fixed, transparent criteria that are agreed by affirmative resolution of the House. That would be not only of assistance to Ministers, who would not be in the invidious position of having to arrive at an entirely subjective decision on what might be a controversial matter, but of enormous benefit to local authorities. Instead of waiting for the Secretary of State to pronounce on whether their schools budget was adequate or inadequate, they would be able to consult using the clear published criteria, which would have been agreed following debate in this House. They would be able to ascertain Ministers' thinking, as they would be required to argue the case for their criteria. Local authorities would also be able to consult the regulations, and have certainty as to the likely treatment of a proposed budget settlement put to Ministers.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Does my hon. Friend not agree that such regulations or arrangements would save a huge amount of time for head teachers, governors and a whole host of the education community in many local education authorities? Without them, I am sure

that there would be a temptation to lobby right hon. and hon. Members, Ministers and officials, to organise deputations to this place, and to spend a huge amount of money, time and effort coming to this place from distant parts of the kingdom. That would be overridden, perhaps by the Department, in due course. However, were there objective criteria to be consulted, that time and effort could be devoted to education.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

My hon. Friend makes a useful point. Not only would that help to avoid unnecessary burdens of bureaucracy on head teachers, local authorities and governing bodies, it might help to avoid unnecessary and pointless activity by Members of Parliament, who, under the Bill, could go to Ministers in the role of supplicant without knowing what criteria the Secretary of State had in mind. Therefore, they would not know whether they were wasting their time and that of their constituents, or whether they were giving false hope to schools, schools forums or other bodies in their constituencies. A more open, transparent process would improve, on every count, the outcome that Ministers want to achieve. It would assist the budget process of local authorities, and it would be helpful to all concerned if there were particular criteria by which Ministers would arrive at a judgment.

I said that I was going to be helpful, and that I was offering Ministers a choice. Given that they loathe affirmative resolutions, do not like to be troubled to come to this House, and prefer to have untrammelled powers, I have also offered them a slightly lower hurdle over which to jump, in the form of amendment No. 269. It would play a similar role in establishing transparent regulations for those involved in the decision-making process, but would stop short of insisting on the affirmative resolution procedure. If Ministers accept that it is in everybody's interests that the criteria that are used to decide whether a school's budget is at an acceptable level should be readily available and clear to all concerned, but their stumbling block is that they do not want to have to come to this place to justify their views, and they do not want to be troubled with debate on them in all circumstances, they could opt for amendment No. 269. It would still provide for regulations to set out matters clearly, but would not require them to be approved by affirmative resolution.

I hope that the Minister accepts that it would be helpful in all stages of the decision-making process if the criteria used to make the judgment were available to all to be consulted on and not hidden behind closed doors in the Department for Education and Skills.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I shall first set out what the Government intend to achieve through the reserve power that the clause introduces. It is one of the most contentious aspects of the Bill, and there has been much debate about it outside the Committee. As we made clear, the new funding system for local authorities and schools that we shall introduce for the financial year 2003–04 will replace the current single spending assessment for education with a

separate assessment for the schools budget and for the central budget of each local education authority. The schools figure will be announced publicly. Under existing local government finance legislation, we shall provide that each authority must make a clear and simple statement to its council tax payers of how its schools budget compares with its schools assessment.

We are therefore relying principally on transparency in the new system to ensure that LEAs provide appropriate funding for their schools sector. However, our experience in recent years has been that although the great majority of LEAs have been willing to pass on annual increases in funding to their schools, a small minority have not, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said. We do not want schools to face cuts instead of the funding increases for which the Government have provided, so we are establishing a reserve power under which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can, if necessary, set a minimum level for an authority's schools budget. We do not want to use the power, and I hope that we shall never have to use it. It will certainly be used rarely, if at all, but we would be failing our schools and pupils if we did not provide for the power as a back-up.

I shall respond first to the couplet of amendments Nos. 193 and 269. As the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West hinted, they contradict each other, although he expressed that differently.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The Minister made an important point about what he is attempting to do. I think that few of us would disagree with his intentions, but he has not committed himself to ensuring that, no matter where a local authority is located, it will receive a minimum entitlement. That is Liberal Democrat policy, so I am delighted that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West has come on board. The average primary education funding per pupil is £1,934. The minimum that some authorities receive is £1,551, and the maximum is £4,939. At secondary level, the minimum is £1,420, and the maximum is £5,157. The average is £2,483. Before the Minister can realise his vision and before he ever has to use his powers, that fundamental discrepancy between what students receive in one part of the country and what they get in another needs to be addressed.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Order. This is a long intervention. It is more like a speech.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I have made my point.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman is asking me to describe the funding system that we will introduce for 2003–04. Of course, I am not in a position to do that today. However, we have made it clear that an element of the system will be an amount per pupil, which will apply throughout the country. We envisage that amount being increased when there are clear grounds to do so, such as circumstances in a local area that would incur additional costs and therefore warrant additional spending. By the sound of things, the hon. Gentleman will support the new system when we describe it in detail, which I hope to be able to do in the spring.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

Before I make my substantive point, I draw the Minister's attention to the days when we

were younger when the team to which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough appears so attached were noted for dressing themselves all in white yet were known as the dirtiest players on the pitch. There could be an odd parallel.

Will the Minister assure me that when he does the work that he mentioned, he will take account of significant regional differences in costs for schools, such as teaching and facilities costs? I am sure that the Minister is aware of my worries about costs in the south-east, and I want reassurance that that will be reflected in his work.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Yes, indeed. We intend to reflect in the new formula, when it is published, the significant additional costs that are incurred for reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentioned or because of other issues that arise in schools, such as pupils' needs.

I turn to amendments Nos. 193 and 269. We set out in the explanatory notes some of the circumstances to which the Secretary of State will have regard when deciding whether she should set a minimum level of budget for schools in an authority. Page 18 of the notes mentions such circumstances as how a local education authority's proposed school budget compares with its school funding assessment, the performance of an LEA's schools, pressure from other services and the degree to which the authority fails to pass on increased funding that is provided for its schools. I accept entirely that local education authorities should know how they can avoid the risk of the Secretary of State setting a minimum schools budget. The answer to that is simple. Any authority that passes on the annual increase in its schools assessment to its schools budget may be certain that it will not risk the power being invoked.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The Minister is saying that if an authority does not pass on the element that the Secretary of State gives for education, the Secretary of State may invoke these powers. If the authority spends more than its standard spending assessment, would the Secretary of State use the powers?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I did not say what the hon. Gentleman said that I said. I shall put it the right way round. An authority that passes on the annual increase in its school assessment to its schools budget will not be at risk of the power being invoked. However, the converse is not the case. The Secretary of State will not set a minimum budget for every authority that fails to pass on the increase in its assessment. On the contrary, we expect the power to be exercised very rarely. Before it is exercised, the Secretary of State must take account of all relevant circumstances.

I have mentioned some circumstances that are referred to in the explanatory notes. That is not an exhaustive list. There may be other criteria that the Secretary of State should consider. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West commended to the Committee the virtues of having a fixed list—I think that that was his expression. However, I suggest that that is not the most helpful way to proceed in the interest of local authorities. If we listed every criterion through a formula in regulations or by some other device, at some point in the future we would find

something that had been omitted, which the Secretary of State would not be allowed to consider in making a judgment. It is in the interests of local authorities that that process should not be prescriptive. The list commended by the hon. Gentleman may not include an exceptional pressing local circumstance, which everyone agrees should be taken into account. The clause ensures that the Secretary of State will have the flexibility to take such matters into account, which he would not be able to do if the criteria were set in advance.

Under new section 45C(5), any order prescribing a minimum schools budget, which is set out clearly in the clause, will have to be set out in draft and approved by a resolution in the House of Commons. Any exercise of that power will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The existing wording requires the Secretary of State to take account of all circumstances so that she cannot leave any relevant ones out. The amendments would not be to the advantage of local authorities.

Amendment No. 266 would require the Secretary of State to take the schools forum's advice before determining a minimum amount for an authority's schools budget. The problem is the timing: a very tight window in early February when the matter must be decided by the Secretary of State. It is not possible to build into the process a formal consultation with every schools forum. A forum would still be able to reach an immediate view on the LEA's budget plans and communicate that view to the Secretary of State, but it would not make sense to build that into the process.

Amendment No. 270 would allow the Secretary of State to specify minimum per pupil funding for different categories of school. In the new funding system, the Government will be concerned with the split of funding between the schools budget and the LEA budget and, in this case, with the minimum size of the schools budget. The distribution of funding between schools should remain a matter for the LEA in consultation with its schools. The LEA is best placed to take that decision, which needs to be taken locally and in the light of local circumstances. Given those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West will withdraw his two couplets of amendments.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. As I indicated in my opening comments, amendments No. 266 and No. 270 were of a probing nature. I am somewhat satisfied with the Minister's assurances. I accept his point about amendment No. 266, which would create an unrealistic timetable for the Secretary of State, although it does clarify earlier points made about the difficulties that the timetable will create. I shall not press amendment No. 266 to a Division.

On amendment No. 270, we received some interesting enlightenment from the Minister about the framing of the new schools funding arrangements, which shows that a division of funding between schools, or at least a minimum funding level,

features in the Government's thinking. I shall not press that amendment to a vote either.

Regarding the other amendments, I note that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough complimented me on adopting Liberal Democrat policy—not something on which I have ever been congratulated before. Given his comments, I was surprised that he had not tabled amendments to what the Minister described as the most contentious clause of the Bill. I would be delighted if the hon. Gentleman were to support us when we press our amendments to a Division.

I said that I would be happy if the Minister were to give his blessing to either of the amendments. He said that the explanatory notes shed some light, but they are not binding in that instance. They cannot set out the criteria on which the Secretary of State will make any future judgment. The Minister also said that the powers would be used as reserve powers, and that he expects that they will be used infrequently. Neither we, nor schools, nor local authorities can rely on that. The Minister hardly reassures us when he says that the Government want this unlimited, unfettered power, but do not intend to use it. He cannot bind his successor or that of the Secretary of State. The powers can always be given wider use in future under the legislation.

The Minister went on to say that the use of the powers to direct schools' budgets would require a resolution of the House. That is welcome, but it does not deal adequately with the need for those bodies that will be affected by such an order to know in advance whether they will be subject to an order under the provisions.

Sadly, the Minister could not say whether members of the Government would be encouraged to support amendments Nos. 193 or 269. He leaves me with little option but to press both amendments to a vote to establish which one the Minister would like his hon. Friends to support.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 11.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

By means of that Division, we have ascertained that the Government did not wish to support amendment No. 193. We have established what we want, and I shall not press amendment No. 269 to a vote.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I beg to move amendment No. 207, in page 25, line 40, leave out from 'year' to 'is' in line 41.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 208 and 209.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

This group of amendments addresses an embarrassing loophole in the clause, which would mean that if an LEA simply failed to provide notice, the Secretary of State could not proceed with setting the minimum schools budget. That is clearly not how the clause should work, and the amendments ensure that if the LEA does not provide the information, the Secretary of State can proceed in the way that is set out in amendment No. 208.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I want to make a point about the principle of the amendment. On several occasions, I have expressed to the Minister my disappointment that when Opposition Members, in good faith, have tabled amendments designed to tidy up the drafting of the Bill, the Government have determinedly resisted listening or making even the smallest modifications to improve the quality of the drafting, and the legislation, and to clear up apparent discrepancies. There is woolly drafting throughout the legislation.

Therefore, it is altogether right that the Government should be unwilling to listen to contributions on drafting matters from Opposition Members but willing to come back and ask the Committee to make amendments to correct errors that they have made during the earlier parts of their work. I hope that, if the Committee accepts the Government's amendments in a spirit of understanding that when legislation is drafted, mistakes are inevitably made, then during the rest of the debate on the legislation the Minister will give sensible credence to, and be willing to support, Opposition amendments designed to improve the quality of the legislation.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman has, on several occasions, made unwarranted criticisms of the parliamentary draftsman who has worked on the legislation. He thinks that his proposals will improve the quality of the legislation, but I disagree.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 208, in page 25, line 44, at end insert—

'(1A) If at the end of January in any financial year a local education authority has failed to give the Secretary of State a notice under section 45A(5) in relation to their schools budget for the following financial year, the Secretary of State may, at any time after the end of that January, give the authority a notice under subsection (2) or (3).

(1B) In this section and section 45C ''the year under consideration'' means the financial year to which the notice under section 45A(5) relates or, in a case falling within subsection (1A), the financial year in relation to which such a notice ought to have been given.'.

No. 209, in page 25, line 45, leave out from 'determining' to end of line 2 on page 26 and insert

'the minimum amount of the authority's schools budget for the year under consideration'.—[Mr. Timms.]

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move amendment No. 129, in page 26, line 12, after 'notice', insert

'and the opinion on the effect of the notice on their services of other Secretaries of State as appropriate.

( ) ''the effect of the notice on their services of other Secretaries of State as appropriate'' in this clause means in England

(a) in respect of the effect on social services provision by the authority, the Secretary of State for Health;

(b) in respect of the effect on highways, transport, planning, economic development and housing provision by the authority, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions;

(c) in respect of the effect on other services, such Secretary of State or Secretaries of State as the local education authority consider appropriate.

( ) ''the effect of the notice on their services of other Secretaries of State as appropriate'' in this clause means in Wales in respect of the effect on any service, such persons as the National Assembly for Wales shall specify.'.

This is neither a drafting nor a probing amendment. It is a very serious amendment. It seeks to make clear the consequence of the Government's intervention in the budget-making process of a local education authority. The Government have rightly proposed in new section 45B(4) that a notice must be made of the Secretary of State's reasons for amending the budget of a local education authority. But a local education authority does not operate in isolation, and neither does a local authority when it sets the budget for education.

As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West implied earlier, the consequence of a change to a local education authority's budget is a change to the budget of the rest of the services provided by that local authority. The two proposed new subsections enable—indeed, require—appropriate Secretaries of State to make statements about the consequences of the inevitable reduction of the budgets that are provided for their services. If the education budget goes up, another budget must go down, and the amendment requires that the appropriate Secretary of State make a statement on the consequences for their budget.

Adrian Bailey (Labour/Co-operative, West Bromwich West)

The hon. Gentleman's statement about the increase in the education budget having the inevitable consequence of other budgets going down is not necessarily correct. If capping were abolished, it would be possible to sustain other budgets.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I shall have to think about that intervention. Judging by the impression on the Minister's face, he will have to think about it too. Whether or not the consequences will be as I have described, the fact is that such action will have consequences. I accept that the Minister has a particular interest in the education budgets of a local authority, but I am concerned about all its budgets. As for the example of the social services budget, many local authorities face considerable pressure on their social services budgets this year. Indeed, the party to which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is affiliated complained just the other day that local authorities were setting their social services budgets so low that voluntary organisations were having to subsidise the cost of elderly people in residential homes. My local authority, which is run in the main by the Liberal Democrats, is one of those authorities, but I shall pass quickly over that matter as

I can see that it embarrasses him. [Interruption.] It will certainly be in another leaflet.

I want the Secretary of State for Health to be required to go on the record and say that he is satisfied that the consequences of the Secretary of State for Education and Skill's intervention will not be to make the provision of social services significantly worse. In many cases, that is the hard choice that county councils face when it comes to decisions about budget setting. It would be unfair for one Secretary of State to set out reasons why matters will be wonderful for schools, without other Secretaries of State being required to say—if they think it true—that such matters will be wonderful for elderly people in residential homes.

I have also defined the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions as being responsible for other services and I have left a catch-all provision under proposed paragraph (c) because I cannot think of them all. Another important area concerns the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs being the coastal protection authority. In some local authorities, a large amount must be spent—suddenly, in some years—on coastal protection. In the early part of this financial year, two significant cliff falls in my area had significant consequences for the local authority's revenue expenditure. In one case, it required the diversion of an A-class road.

I have explained why I tabled the amendment and I hope that the Minister will consider it sensible and in accordance with transparency and joined-up government. I hope that he will support it.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

As an affiliated member of the Liberal Democrats—I do not know whether that is a promotion or a demotion—I look forward to the latest out-of-touch leaflet from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, however, because the kernel of his argument showed that he has spotted a genuine issue that the Minister has not recognised. I referred to it on Second Reading and it concerns the comments that I have made, perhaps too flippantly, about the bypassing of local authorities under the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman's amendment did not include reference to the Home Secretary's role in the police. Although Mr. Campbell has not briefed me fully, I understand that one major stumbling block in Cabinet was that when the former Secretary of State wanted a ring-fenced budget for education—to take it out of what was the Deputy Prime Minister's Department and run it all from Sanctuary house—the then Home Secretary said that he wanted to do the same for the police. Indeed, other Department heads would be able to say that they needed a ring-fenced budget for their Departments too.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Can the hon. Gentleman enlighten us on whether the current Home Secretary shares his predecessor's view on the subject?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I must confess that the current Home Secretary and I do not speak to each other regularly, as our paths have gone different ways, although we

meet occasionally on the train coming down to London.

It would be an important change if education budgets were ring-fenced and the Secretary of State had statutory powers to say that if a local authority did not spend what the Government said it should spend, they would determine the budget for it. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West noted that about 55 to 60 per cent. of a local authority's budget is spent on education. To remove that would leave a huge hole in local authority responsibilities and, if that were then applied to the police, fire and other services, we would have to question the point of having a local authority at all.

One Government objective in coming into power was to have joined-up thinking. There was the wonderful recognition by the now Home Secretary that education cannot be treated in isolation from other services. When the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and I visited the United States, we saw the wonderful work that was going on in North Carolina with the equivalent of sure start. There was wonderful joined-up thinking which recognised that education depends on quality housing, employment and other infrastructures. Once that is stripped apart and Departments compete for ring-fenced budgets, those opportunities are lost. Although I am sure that the amendment is probing—

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

My hon. Friend said that it was not.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The hon. Gentleman is intelligent enough to know that the amendment is incomplete as it stands. However, he has raised an important issue, and it will be interesting to see how the Minister responds.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Local authorities will have the opportunity to object to a minimum budget, if one is set. That is set out in new section 45C(1). If they object, the Bill will also allow them to set out the impact on other services that they run as part of the process, so the amendment would not be necessary to gather information on the impact on other services.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight may be concerned about consultation with other Ministers. I can reassure him completely that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills would certainly consult colleagues with an interest in other local services before setting a minimum budget for an authority's schools. The Committee will know that the current Home Secretary is a strong supporter of the measure and worked hard to achieve it.

I accept that the topic is a matter for debate and that different people can take different views. The fact that the measure is in the Bill reflects this Government's view that raising standards in education is right at the top of our list of priorities. We need to ensure that the substantial increases in education spending that we will make this year, next year and the year after reach their target and are delivered to schools. Many people will feel that other things are more important and that that priority should not be assigned to education, but it is our clear

view that education should be at the top of our list of priorities.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The Minister says that this shows the priorities that the Government attach to education, which is welcome, although the fact that he has also said that this is a power that he would envisage using extremely infrequently casts some doubt on his claim. Can he give an absolute assurance that there is no possibility that similar powers will be taken in future legislation, during this Parliament by other departmental Ministers, and that there will be no comparable ring fencing for police budgets, transport budgets or other local authority matters?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

There are no proposals to introduce powers along these lines in any other areas. We would not want to restrict local decision-making abilities further. That reflects the Prime Minister's clear statement before he become Prime Minister that our top three priorities were ''education, education, education''. That is reflected in the clause. The Bill already provides that the Secretary of State must take account of all relevant circumstances before deciding to exercise the power to set a minimum level for the schools budget. There is no doubt that the effect on other services is a relevant consideration. That will certainly need to be taken into account. If there is any doubt about that, I am happy to place that assurance on the record. That may be helpful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The Minister said the Secretary of State would consult other Ministers. He amplified the fact that the views of other Ministers will be relevant in determining the decision that the Secretary of State eventually reaches. He did not say, however, that the Secretary of State would ensure that the views of other Ministers were reported and made clear to the local authority at that time. Is that the case?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

No, I would not introduce a system whereby the views of many different Ministers would be published. That would be an unusual arrangement. Those concerns would certainly be taken into account, as would the local authority's concerns about the impact on its other services. I hope that the Committee will take the view that the amendment does not help and that the way that the clause currently sets out the proposal is right.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am afraid that the Minister has made it clear that he is not willing for there to be transparency. There may be joined-up government, but it would be under a veil. Frankly joined-up government under a veil is of no help to local authorities going through the difficult process of setting their budgets. Time after time, local authorities are told that there is enough money because the revenue support grant, or whatever, ensures that enough money comes through. That is not widely believed by local authorities.

If the Secretary of State believes that he is setting a reasonable budget, that is one thing, but convincing the members of the local authority of that is a different matter. Effectively, local authority members escape responsibility. I emphasise that because it is something with which I am terribly familiar in my local authority.

The tendency to blame the Government for everything that goes wrong is widespread, but occurs particularly in local authorities led by the party that is not in the habit of being in government.

I do not want my local authority or others to be able to say, ''We know that your elderly grandparents are suffering a total lack of domiciliary care and that your elderly parents are being thrown out of residential homes, but it is the fault of the wicked Government. It is not our fault, but theirs.''

We want the Secretary of State for Health to be able to say in public, hand on heart, that there is enough money—

It being Seven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June 2001] and the Order of the Committee [11, 13 and 18 December 2001], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Stephen O'Brien (Conservative, Eddisbury)

On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. We had the opportunity to discuss clause 40, although we have not concluded our discussions. We have not had the opportunity to discuss clauses 41 and 42, to which amendments have been tabled. It would be logical to be able to vote

against clauses 41, 42 and even 43, as we have not even considered them. We would like to take those clauses separately, if that is convenient for you.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Unfortunately, under the programme resolution, hon. Members cannot vote separately on the clauses that are left. They must be considered under one Question.

Question put, That clause 40, as amended, and clauses 41 to 43 stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 6.