Education Bill

Public Bill Committee, 17 January 2002.

Standing Committee G

Education Bill

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I understand that there will be a Programming Sub-Committee, so I shall suspend the sitting for a couple of minutes.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

John Heppell (Labour, Nottingham East)

I beg to move,

(1) That the Order of the Committee [11 December 2001] relating to programming, as amended [13 and 18 December 2001 and 10 January 2002] be amended as follows—

in paragraph (1), at the end there is inserted 'and on Monday 21st January at half past Four o'clock';

in paragraph (2), '18' is omitted and '19' inserted;

the entries for the 13th to 18th sittings are omitted and the following is inserted:

13th Clauses 115 to 126, Schedule 12, Clauses 127 to 144, Schedule 13

14th Clauses 115 to 126, Schedule 12, Clauses 127 to 144, Schedule 13 (so far as not previously concluded)

15th Clauses 115 to 126, Schedule 12, Clauses 127 to 144, Schedule 13 (so far as not previously concluded)7 pm

16th Clauses 145 to 148, Schedule 14, Clauses 149 to 151, Schedule 15, Clauses 152 to 170

17th Clauses 145 to 148, Schedule 14, Clauses 149 to 151, Schedule 15, Clauses 152 to 170 (so far as not previously concluded)10 pm

18th Clauses 171 to 181, Schedule 16, Clause 182, Schedule 17, Clause 183, Schedule 18, Clauses 184 to 189, Schedule 11, Clauses 190 to 193, Schedule 19, Clauses 194 to 200, Schedule 20, Clauses 201 to 211, Schedule 21, Schedule 22, new Clauses, new Schedules

19th Clauses 171 to 181, Schedule 16, Clause 182, Schedule 17, Clause 183, Schedule 18, Clauses 184 to 189, Schedule 11, Clauses 190 to 193, Schedule 19, Clauses 194 to 200, Schedule 20, Clauses 201 to 211, Schedule 21, Schedule 22, new Clauses, new Schedules (so far as not previously concluded)5 pm

(2) The Standing Committee recommends that two days be allotted for consideration and Third Reading of the Education Bill.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I should like to make a brief comment and, in passing, apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) for his absence. He is serving with the armed forces parliamentary scheme and will not be here until later today.

The Opposition are grateful that the Government have listened to our concerns. The removal of knives

during the course of our proceedings will allow more responsible progress through the Bill, and we will not be artificially constrained from focusing on aspects that require greater scrutiny.

I also welcome the Government's agreement to allow two days on Report, in recognition of the fact that large parts of the Bill have not been dealt with adequately in Committee. For the record, I had asked for two and a half days. However, I accept that the Government have made some movement, and that is welcome. We can proceed on that basis.

Question put and agreed to.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. I want to put on the record a declaration of interest before we debate the next clause and amendments. My wife is a schoolteacher.Clause 115 Teachers' pay and conditions

Clause 115 - Teachers' pay and conditions

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 484, in page 72, line 10, leave out 'School Teachers' and insert 'Teaching Professions'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 485, in page 72, line 14, leave out 'School Teachers' and insert 'Teaching Professions'.

Amendment No. 488, in page 72, line 19, leave out 'School Teachers' and insert 'Teaching Professions'.

Amendment No. 489, in page 72, line 37, leave out 'School Teachers' and insert 'Teaching Professions'.

Amendment No. 490, in page 75, line 34, leave out 'School Teachers' and insert 'Teaching Professions'.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am pleased to speak to the amendments, which are the kind that we all like, in that they are identical in their effect.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey) made a declaration about his wife being a schoolteacher, may I make a declaration of interest? My wife is also a schoolteacher.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Griffiths. My wife is also a schoolteacher. At least, she was this morning when she set off for work.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I am not taking part in the debate, but my wife is also a schoolteacher, and so is her brother.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Not to be left out, I should declare that my wife is spending so much time assisting our children with their education that she thinks she has become a teacher.

I hope that Ministers will accept that my simple point has real value and purpose. Members on both sides of the Committee believe that it is increasingly important that action is taken to restore the standing of the teaching profession. In recent decades, the profession has fallen from the high public esteem in which it was traditionally regarded and in which it

should be held. The amendment would substitute the term ''school teachers'' with the term ''teaching professions''. That is a small but important step that would ensure that teachers are properly recognised as a profession, and that their status is reflected in the titles of the public bodies that deal with them. I hope that Ministers will accept that the amendment would have no substantive effect on the Bill's aims, but might in a small way help us to achieve our common aim of raising and emphasising the professional standing of teachers. Teachers up and down the country would greatly appreciate the move.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The Liberal Democrats have much sympathy with the arguments made by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). He makes a sensible point. Early in February, the Government will introduce a Green Paper on the curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds, and we all envisage closer ties between different organisations in the 14-19 sector. Divisions exist between different parts of the teaching profession, for example in schools and further education colleges where there will increasingly be an interchange of staff. It is therefore important that we refer to the teaching profession in its broader sense. The amendment would enable us to bridge that gap, and would allow those who work in the 16-plus sector to work in the 14-19 sector and to be covered by the necessary regulations.

This is a sensible move forward, and I hope that the Government will take it seriously, even if they do not agree to the amendment. We are moving into new times, and we are all trying to re-establish teaching as the profession which I always believed it to be. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) believed that he was in a teaching profession. It was not a job to us, but a profession. That professional status has declined dramatically, largely because Conservative Governments undermined the teaching profession year after year.

In the spirit of harmony that has broken out in the Committee, which was engineered by the Government Whip who has metamorphosed in that regard, I hope that the Minister will agree to this sensible amendment.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

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

I agree with the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West about the importance of the standing of the teaching profession. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) is right about the approach that teachers take to their work. I am sure that he accurately expressed the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling. The School Teachers Review Body was originally set up with that in mind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave an important speech to the Social Market Foundation in November entitled ''Professionalism and Trust'', thereby articulating our approach to the teaching profession.

There is a serious difficulty with this proposal, as the teaching profession goes a good deal wider than schoolteachers as defined in clause 118. The Secretary of State determines the pay and conditions of schoolteachers who are employed by LEAs and governing bodies. The review body reports on that, but not on the pay and conditions of other members of the teaching profession. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough rightly makes the point that a growing number of people regard themselves as members of the teaching profession. I do not think that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West wishes to widen the review body's terms of reference to include that larger group. Indeed, he has tabled some amendments that would weaken the role of the School Teachers Pay Body.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Does the Minister accept that many professionals working in further education or in sixth-form colleges, who deliver the same package of four AS-levels and three A-levels as a school sixth-form, are on significantly lower pay and have different conditions? The Government should address that issue. I hope that through such amendments as these we can start to address some of the inequities in the system that are indefensible in modern education.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman, I think, will shortly argue for a more limited and restricted role for the review body, rather than for the wider role that he now supports. There certainly are differences. It is important to give the review body a clear remit. The legislation makes it clear, and the body works well. It is important that the name relates to that remit. I hope on that basis the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West will not press the amendment. I agree with much of what he said about the importance of the teaching profession having a high standing. The Government are keen to make progress in that respect.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful remarks. I certainly welcome his support for the principle behind the amendments. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough raised an important point about teachers in further education, but that was not the focus of the amendments. The Minister raised another interesting aspect when he said that there are many others who regard themselves as part of the teaching profession. I fully accept that some people do so legitimately, but the Minister should consider the implication of professional status.

Inclusive as the Government may wish to be on all matters, professional status necessarily implies exclusivity. One is either a member of a profession or one is not. The Minister needs to reflect on where that line should properly be drawn, because if people were allowed to define whether they were members of a teaching profession, that professional status would be diluted. If the Minister really wants to enhance the professional status of teachers, which is an aim that we share, he will have to tackle that problem. Much of what the Government are doing, such as compulsory registration with the General Teaching Council, implies that they recognise that, although the Minister's remarks suggested that the point is not yet entirely taken. I hope that it will be in due course.

We have had a useful, brief exchange on the amendment, which I shall not press to a Division. 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. 499, in clause 115, page 72, line 13, after 'exist', insert

'subject to an annual affirmative resolution procedure'.

In opposition, the Labour party strongly opposed the setting up of the School Teachers Review Body under the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991. At that time, it rightly argued that the body was in direct contravention of International Labour Organisation recommendations, which it then strongly supported. The teaching profession assumed that when there was a Labour Government with Mr. Kinnock as its socialist Prime Minister, which they expected to be in 1992, there would be a return to the norm of proper bargaining between teachers and their employers.

I strongly support the principle that every worker has the right to be represented and to negotiate pay and conditions. It is sad that some members of the modern Labour party do not feel that that right should be protected. The Government do not intend to repeal the 1991 Act, and they are determined that the School Teachers Review Body should continue under the Bill. That organisation is appointed by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State; there is no other case in Britain of an organisation that decides on the pay and conditions of a group of workers, who are not allowed to negotiate, being appointed by those who provide the resources; that is, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. I accept that that situation is not of this Government's making, but it is important to remind the Committee about it before I talk about the substance of the amendment.

David Miliband (Labour, South Shields)

If the hon. Gentleman reflects on the past 10 years, does he think that teachers would have got a better deal bargaining collectively or would it have been a better deal for schools? The average pay rises for teachers as a result of the STRB compared well with the previous 10 years and with what they got out of collective bargaining. I ask that question in a reasonably open spirit.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking the question because he is wrong. Since the STRB was set up, comparing teachers' pay with that of other non-manual workers, the average received by other non-manual workers—[Interruption.] Some comparisons have to be made and that is the yardstick that the Government have adopted. It has gone down significantly over the period, but that is not my main argument. In the past 10 years, we could have moved towards a single professional association representing all teachers, which is essential and I have argued the case with the individual teacher unions. The division gets in the way of direct collective bargaining and agreements between employers and teachers.

The purpose of the amendment is to apply our annual affirmative resolution procedure to the STRB, which is now 10 years old. To be fair, since coming into office in 1997 the Government have made

significant changes to the remuneration of teachers: they have introduced a threshold, performance management, advanced skills teachers and other arrangements. It was the Government, not the School Teachers Review Body, who decided to implement those changes. I do not question their right to do so, but the time has come for them not just to reaffirm the STRB as the model for deciding these matters for the next five to 10 years, but constantly to review the position.

The Government envisage at least 10 per cent. of schools having earned autonomy by the end of this Parliament. One element of earned autonomy is the ability to determine pay and conditions. The grant-maintained experience showed that few schools took advantage of such arrangements, so I doubt whether many schools will take advantage now. It is more likely that the STRB will become increasingly obsolete.

Every year, the House has an opportunity to examine the work of the School Teachers Review Body and, under affirmative resolution procedure, to declare whether it is appropriate for it to continue. After all, it is a quango, not a direct negotiation between teachers and their employers. It is time for the Government to assess whether the STRB is appropriate in our new era of valuing teachers. The Secretary of State made a statement to the Social Market Foundation about professionalism and trust, but in an age of professionalism and trust we have no need of a body to tell teachers how much they can earn. The amendment is designed to deal with that matter.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. As usual, he speaks with a forked tongue: the amendment says one thing, but his explanation says another. I sympathise with his argument that a quango takes negotiation out of the hands of individuals and their employers and places decision-making in the hands of a national body.

The School Teachers Review Body was set up for good reasons. As the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) pointed out, since its establishment in 1991—my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Baker of Dorking set up its predecessor—the teaching profession has benefited from reasonably generous pay increases and from the fact that negotiations about salaries were removed from the sphere of conflict between employer and employee.

That was very much the position before 1986. Hon. Members may recall that at that time the employers' organisations were on one side, and the teachers' trade unions on the other. In the middle were the Secretary of State's appointees. They all attempted to reach a mutually agreed position on teachers' pay and usually did so to the sound of considerable argument in the background. On many occasions, there were strikes or other so-called industrial action and activity that diminished the professional standing of teachers in the eyes of the world outside and that did considerable damage to pupils in their classrooms. It is fair to say that, since 1986, those noises off have reduced.

We should ask what the consequence would be of what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough proposes. He says that there should be a single teaching union, but why? What is the benefit to teachers of being forced into a monopoly trade union rather than one that more effectively represents their standpoints and views of professionalism? Some teachers believe that it is inappropriate to strike or take similar action. Others believe that when their union says that action should be taken, they should join it willy-nilly.

I have been a member of unions that hold both positions. I am a former member of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers and of the Professional Association of Teachers. I left one union and joined the other because I felt that the strike action that the NAS/UWT promoted in 1978 and 1979 damaged my relationships with the pupils whom I was in the school to teach and with other members of staff in the common room.

There is a good reason why members of the teaching profession should not have a monopoly union representative. They hold different views, as is right, but different unions found it much more difficult to agree a unified position when it came to pay negotiations. As a result, some were striking for one thing and some for another. It was often difficult for employers to meet the desires of both branches of the teachers' side of the Burnham committee.

I am not convinced that it would be better to return to the model of employee-employer relations in the teaching profession that existed right through the 1960s, 1970s and into the middle of the 1980s. My late father, who joined the profession in 1937, strongly believed that it was the action in the 1960s that so diminished the standing of teachers in the public's view. He was uncomfortable because he felt that that action had undermined his relationships with his school, pupils and parents exactly as I described and he did not want teachers to be put in that position.

There are different views on the issue, but I do not believe that a professional goes on strike. They must put the needs of their clients—pupils, in this case—above any personal aspiration. A return to the bargaining arrangements as they were called—battling arrangements would be a better description—of the 1960s is the last thing that we want in the profession.

The hon. Gentleman's amendment talks merely about maintaining the review body by an affirmative resolution each year. I see no difficulty in having a debate on teachers' pay each year. The Liberal Democrats have many Opposition days on which they can bring motions before the House . If they think it is important, perhaps they could do that. I do not know how frequently they have done so in the past.

It will be unwise to assume that this review body will cease to be of relevance, even in the conditions of earned autonomy that the Government hope will

prevail among many schools as a result of the passing of this Bill. It is useful to have a national benchmark. It is particularly useful for teachers to be placed on the same level as right hon. and hon. Members of this Committee, nurses and doctors, the medical professions, and high court judges, in having an external review of appropriate remuneration levels for the profession and the minimum conditions in which teachers are expected to operate. That is not to say that teachers by private arrangement should not agree differently, and that they should not agree differently under the conditions of earned autonomy that the Government are proposing. I see no difficulty in having a professional benchmark in the way that the School Teachers Review Body was designed to establish.

To reiterate, the STRB has led fewer strikes or industrial disputes and has achieved better remuneration and terms of conditions for teachers than was the case before these arrangements were established.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The review body has worked well in its 10 years' of existence. It has certainly brought stability to teachers' pay settlements. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields was right to point out that it has served the interests of teachers well too. The review body was born out of years of previous conflict. I do not think that anyone would regard the old way of doing things as a good way to settle these matters, but all that has ended.

The review body is widely supported among teachers and employers. With the exception of the National Union of Teachers, the other unions do not object to it, so it has achieved a remarkably wide array of support. That reflects the success that it has had in its 10 years in operation and the fact that it replaced a bargaining system that had failed.

It is unacceptable that the STRB should exist only on the basis of the annual parliamentary debate. That would be a recipe for disarray. Perhaps the suggestion was simply a probing point. I think that the Minister would agree that weakness, confusion and uncertainty about teachers' pay is in nobody's interests and that it is important that we have a clear system and that people know how it works. People need to be confident that the system will deliver a sensible outcome, as it has done in the past 10 years.

I have more sympathy with what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said about the attractions of a single teaching association. I certainly had more sympathy than the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on that matter. Of course, it is a matter for all of the profession entirely. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made a very valid argument on that point, but I do not agree with him about the amendment. I think that on reflection he would also feel that the confusion that it would cause would be unhelpful. I hope that he will withdraw it.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am grateful to the Minister for the courteous way in which he has dealt with the amendments. At least he is not still fighting an election.

How we deal with teachers' pay and conditions in the future is an important issue. The employers' organisations that sponsored this amendment, not the National Union of Teachers, also hold strongly to the view that the STRB has served a purpose and should be replaced. We should negotiate about that. The Government are rightly considering innovative ways in which we can take the profession and our schools forward, and the amendment would keep that process under review. I hear what the Minister says, and 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. 486, in page 72, leave out line 15.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 487, in page 72, line 16, after 'appoint' insert 'the chairman and'.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

These are probing amendments, and they would bring the appointment of the review body chairman into line with the mechanism for the appointment of review body members. Committee members will have noticed that the chairman will be appointed by the Prime Minister, whereas the other members will be appointed by the Secretary of State. Would it be more appropriate for the chairman to be appointed by the Secretary of State? That would acknowledge that the Secretary of State has a role in the development of education policy, given that doubt has arisen as to where Government education policy originates.

There is increasing press speculation that the shift is continuing and that Downing street is in the driving seat on education policy more than the Department. I am giving the Minister an opportunity in the turf war between the Department and Downing street to seize a small but important piece of territory. I am sure that with the support of his hon. Friend the Whip, his hon. Friends on the Government Benches—one or two may have divided loyalties—would be readily persuaded to join him in emphasising that the Secretary of State is capable of making such decisions. In appointing the chairman of the review body, the Secretary of State may be able to perform a useful function.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

At present, all members of the School Teachers Review Body are appointed by the Prime Minister. The Bill will change that: only the appointment of the chairman will be left to the Prime Minister. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the result of the turf war to which he erroneously alluded. It puts the arrangements for that review body in line with the arrangements for all the others. The STRB has a critical role: a large number of public sector workers are affected by it. Pay is one of the key factors in recruitment and retention, which is currently an important concern. The reports of the review body have a critical impact on the country's economy. They are sent to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. The STRB chairman has a key role and should be appointed by, and with the authority of, the Prime Minister: that gives the body additional status. It is also appropriate for review body members to be appointed by the Secretary of State. That arrangement puts it in line with other

review bodies: the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body, the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine, the Prison Service Pay Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Body. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight reminded the Committee that Members of Parliament are the beneficiaries of such a body as well. The arrangement in the Bill will put the School Teachers' Review Body in line with the others, so I commend it to the Committee.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the Minister. He gave an explanation that seemed to run along the lines of the Secretary of State being permitted to perform some functions, but with her work being sent to the Prime Minister for checking or marking at the end of the process. That will not come as a surprise to Committee members. The Minister said that I was wrong to imply that there was turf war, so we are left to draw the conclusion that there is just a meek surrender from the Department. I gave the Minister an opportunity; sadly, he has chosen not to take it. However, I do not intend to press for a Division, and 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. 537, in page 72, line 17, at end add—

'(5) The National Assembly for Wales may establish a consultative committee on pay and conditions for the teaching profession in Wales, which may make representations on any function relating to teachers in Wales to the Review Body.'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 538, in clause 116, page 72, line 20, after 'state', insert

'or a committee established under section 115(5),'.

No. 539, in clause 117, page 73, line 11, after 'schools', insert—

'( ) a committee established under section 115(5),'.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

As you know, Mr. Griffiths, from your splendid time in the Chair of this Committee—a time that I am sure you will remember with great joy and affection—I have sought to be entirely even-handed. I do not like to leave out any Government Member, and from time to time I have tried to give the Under-Secretary of State for Wales a role in our proceedings. Without wanting to impose significant changes to the powers of the Welsh Assembly or shift the balance of the devolution settlement, the amendments would open up a new avenue for greater consultation. They would not replicate the STRB mechanism exactly, but would allow the National Assembly for Wales to establish a consultative committee to have an input into the deliberations of both the STRB and the Secretary of State, or the Prime Minister as the case may be, in matters of teacher remuneration.

As we see light at the end of the tunnel in the Committee's proceedings, I was keen to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales was not entirely left out. He should have an opportunity to speak for the Principality and about the possibility that

consultation might be established with the STRB mechanism.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I am touched by the caring, loving and tender approach of the new Tory party, as shown by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West this morning. It is not something we are used to from the Tories in Wales, as you would know Mr. Griffiths.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

There aren't any.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

Well, there are one or two still under the surface.

The amendment would allow a form of special consideration of teachers' pay and conditions in Wales. Pay and conditions are not devolved to the Assembly and are matters for the Secretary of State. The STRB is required to take evidence from representatives of local education authorities, other employers and teachers, and we believe that those arrangements are appropriate means of reflecting the interests of the teaching profession in Wales. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is committed to consulting the Assembly before taking final decisions on matters relating to the review body. For example, the Department's evidence to the STRB takes account of comments made by the Assembly.

I am concerned that the amendments carry the potential to lead to significant differences in the pay structures of teachers in England and Wales. There is no question of that happening while teachers' pay and conditions remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State.

The question of whether teachers' pay in Wales should be devolved is separate. It was resolved in the face of stiff opposition from the Conservative party when we settled the devolution arrangements in the Government of Wales Act 1998 and transferred a number of functions to the Assembly. However, this was not one of them. I believe that it is the Conservative party's policy to extend the devolution settlement by adding more powers and responsibilities to the Assembly in Wales. If that is now its policy it is very new, which is interesting. It may or may not have told its colleagues in Cardiff.

The practical consideration of the STRB's work load must be taken into account. The board does not carry out separate consultations for England and Wales. It is a body of unpaid volunteers, and it does not have the resources to do so. These amendments would carry greater logic and conviction if they were aimed at establishing a new review body for teachers' pay in Wales. However, that would fly in the face of the devolution settlement and I do not believe that his party would want to do that.

I am concerned about the prospect of separate pay and conditions developing between teachers in Wales and England. We would be on a slippery slope regarding Welsh interests. As you will know, Mr. Griffiths, Welsh schools suffer fewer problems with teacher recruitment and retention than schools in some

parts of England. I am sure that market logic will dictate that separate pay and conditions for teachers in England and Wales would lead to the pay of teachers in Wales eventually falling behind that of teachers in England. I am sure that that is not the hon. Gentleman's intention, and it is certainly not something that the Government would support. In the light of those comments, I urge the hon. Gentleman to be satisfied with the present devolution settlement, as we are, and to withdraw his amendment.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am delighted that I brought the Minister into deliberations. It has been an enlightening exchange, not least because of the logic of the Government's position. In elements of the Bill we have seen a clear indication that the Government wish to move away from the kind of national pay agreements to which the Minister just referred. I wonder whether he really believes that, under the more decentralised, locally determined pay arrangements towards which the Bill's logic is moving us, teachers in Wales are about to see their pay and conditions reduced. I do not believe that that is likely to happen, but it is an interesting point.

Perhaps more interesting was his tangential approach to the difficulties that arise when pay and conditions differ on either side of the border. That is an implicit recognition of some of the difficulties that might arise as a result of such an arrangement being made in relation to the English-Scottish border, where that situation already exists. The Minister did not specifically comment on the situation in Scotland, but by implication, he suggested that it was regrettable.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

Teachers move far more frequently between posts in England and Wales than they do between England and Scotland. Scotland has long established separate pay arrangements. That is not the case in Wales, which is integrated into the same system as England, with the same pay and conditions. That has proved satisfactory and beneficial for the teaching profession in England and Wales. For those reasons I strongly resist the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but that in no way reflects on the way Scotland has developed its education system. It has been separate for many years.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the Minister for clearing up that uncertainty. As I said at the outset, the purpose of the amendments is to explore how consultation might best take place. The Minister seems satisfied with consultation taking place solely with individual LEAs.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I wonder whether we might explore the issue further. The Minister may be happy with it, but I am not convinced that members of the teaching profession in Wales will continue to benefit from the existing level of consultation, for the reason that he outlined a moment ago. The benefits of the Bill will, to a great extent, not be felt in Wales. The Government have prescribed an imaginative and innovative range of measures for schools in England that would enable teachers in England to enjoy infinitely better terms and conditions of employment than those that the School Teachers Review Body may recommend. It is harder for teachers in Wales to enjoy those benefits. They may wish to see some improvement in their general benefits

that they cannot negotiate at school level, unlike teachers in England. That is why we believe that the measures might be appropriate.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. We will watch with great care how the developments that will be ushered in by the Bill will affect schools in England and Wales. The purpose of the amendments was to secure an explanation of the Government's view, which the Minister has given. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 116 - Review body: function

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 492, in page 72, line 20, after 'state' insert:

'or a General Teaching Council'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 525, in page 72, line 20, after 'Secretary of State', insert:

'or other appropriate or relevant body.'

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The impact of the amendments would affect consultation and which bodies it is appropriate to involve in the process by which the STRB would arrive at its conclusions. Amendment No. 492 would introduce an expectation that the General Teaching Council would be involved in consultation on these deliberations, and seeks to draw from Ministers what they believe the role of the GTC to be in matters relating to pay and conditions. Do they believe that the role is integral to the process, and do they wish the GTC to be directly involved? If so, how would it be involved and at what stage of the deliberations? Presumably, the GTC would be in a position to make submissions directly to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State in various matters affecting pay and conditions. It may be appropriate for the GTC also to make representations to the STRB. If the Minister agrees, he may wish to include that in the Bill. Amendment No. 525 would broaden the basis on which other appropriate bodies could be involved.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

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

There has been much debate about the degree to which we believe that the Bill concentrates many powers in the hands of the Secretary of State over a range of different functions. The amendment would provide a small but significant safety valve for the process of possible centralisation. It would allow other groups involved in the profession to seek the involvement of the review body in matters of teacher employment and would provide a degree of reassurance to the teaching profession. It would be an additional route by which the teaching profession could raise and debate issues. As such, teachers' representatives would welcome it. I hope that the Minister will consider making that small addition to the Bill; it would enhance the profession's reception of it.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West for raising the issue. We must get a clear idea from the Government about what they consider to be the role of the GTC. I believe that the hon. Gentleman sat with me on the Committee that set it up.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

No, I did not.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

It must have been another hon. Member; they change so frequently.

There was a huge debate at the time about the role of the GTC. Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members argued strongly that the GTC should be more than just a registration organisation, which was the Government's initial intention. Although I do not believe that they intended it to stay at that level, we were greatly concerned.

The hon. Gentleman's proposal is a step too far. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) is not right in saying that the teaching profession would welcome GTC involvement in pay and conditions issues. The role of the GTC is to advocate the profession's role in education; we have long needed such an organisation and advocacy.

I supported the GTC from the time that I entered the profession. However, I would not want to see it becoming embroiled in pay and conditions issues, because that is for the professional associations themselves. If the GTC were drawn into such debates and arguments, it would be put on a different footing and no longer impartial. It would have to support one organisation against another, and that would be regrettable.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

As I said at the outset, this is a probing amendment. We are having an interesting discussion. The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that the function of the GTC is to express views on the role of the teaching profession and its members. How can that be divided from the second part of the STRB functions to do with other conditions of employment, such as professional duties and working time? There is a clear overlap.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I draw the distinction where the hon. Gentleman says that the GTC should become involved in the STRB process. The STRB was set up under the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Act 1991 specifically to deal with teachers' pay and conditions, and the Bill reinforces that. It acts as the interface between the Government as paymaster, the local authorities and individual schools and teachers.

If the GTC were involved in such matters, it would be positioned alongside the professional associations. I do not think that that is what the GTC wants, what its chief executive or its chairman, Lord Puttnam wants, or what the teaching associations want it to be. They want an independent GTC that can advocate on behalf of the profession, responding to the Government's standards agenda and other involvements that affect schools. It should not interfere in matters that are the province of the professional associations, which are there to deal with the pay and conditions of their members, rather than with those broader issues.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

May I seek a point of clarification? It would not be appropriate for the GTC to become involved as a lobbyist in pay and conditions matters. However, if I read the amendment correctly, it would offer the GTC the opportunity to make the review body aware of important matters. Issues of pay and conditions for teachers cross over into areas of standards. Would it be beneficial for the GTC to draw the attention of the review body to such issues?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As I said, the amendment is a good way of probing the Government's thinking. The GTC can speak to the Government and professional associations directly, and if it wants to express an opinion, it will do so. My amendment is questioning something else. By inviting the GTC to be part of a formal organisation—the STRB—it would stray into territory that I do not believe it should. That is my point, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I should like to explore in more depth the points made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West that there is an area of overlap. The GTC might feel that an issue of pay and conditions has arisen, but cannot convince the Government or the professional organisations of the need to amend pay and conditions in order to implement that important issue. The GTC briefing explains that its purpose is to contribute to improving the standard of teaching and the quality of learning and to maintain and improve standards of professional conduct. Improving the standard of teaching implies a commitment to additional training. The professional associations may not want that training to be taken outside the school day. The Government and the employers may not want it to take place during the school day or to provide money for it to take place outside the school day. The GTC may need to influence the STRB directly, rather than use the indirect routes to which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough referred.

On professional standing, the GTC has the power to remove teachers from the register. What are the consequences for employment in those circumstances? I assume the consequence is that they would cease to be employed. What is the position of an employer who has been deprived of a teacher whom they wished to employ? In a professional tribunal, it might be found that an employer had not given appropriate consideration to a teacher's continuing employment because a different body took the decision and nothing in the teacher's contract of employment or pay and conditions agreement enabled the teacher to be dismissed forthwith, which would be the consequence of removal from the register of the General Teaching Council.

It is unlikely that the amendment would be invoked frequently, but I see no reason why the GTC should not be consulted and be able to make a direct rather than an indirect contribution to the STRB's decisions.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The amendment goes further than the debate implied. It would give additional bodies the same rights as the Secretary of State in providing a remit to the STRB. Amendment No. 492 deals with

the General Teaching Council, but amendment No. 525 is a more generalised version that leaves the field wide open.

We had an interesting debate about the GTC. Both a clause and a schedule are yet to come that will provide further opportunities to discuss the subject. Councils have a different role than is envisaged by putting them on a par with the Secretary of State in providing a remit to the STRB. The GTC exercises important regulatory and advisory functions on professional matters with the aim of improving the standards of teaching, and maintaining and improving standards of professional conduct among teachers. It has made an excellent start.

As I said, amendment No. 525 would leave the field wide open to anyone to provide remits to the STRB. The board has an important and difficult role. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales reminded the Committee a few minutes ago that the STRB is served by volunteers to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. They devote much time without reward to assessing evidence, providing reports and recommendations at the Secretary of State's request, so it would be unfair to impose on them—as would the amendment—the duty to consider any matter referred to them by a host of people and organisations.

Currently the STRB works within a remit provided by the Secretary of State. It reports independently in the light of evidence received from a range bodies. The GTC certainly has an interest in the work of the STRB and it is free to submit evidence if it wishes. It did so recently when the Secretary of State asked the STRB to consider the implications of the fee that teachers are required to pay to register with the GTC. There is nothing to prevent the GTC from submitting evidence again, but it is inappropriate to give it an additional remit and even less appropriate to offer an open-ended free-for-all and require the STRB to consider all representations.

I hope that our useful debate has clarified the requisite points and satisfied the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful for the Minister's clarification and 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. 493, in page 72, line 33, leave out 'require a report' to end of line 34 and insert

'are to be sent a report under subsection (3) the Review Body shall publish it.'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this we may discuss amendment No. 496, in page 72, line 35, at end insert—

'( ) nothing in the foregoing shall allow the Review Body to propose a maximum level of remuneration for teachers or for any group of teachers.'.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

This is a simple point. A provision in the Bill states that when the STRB produces a report, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State shall arrange for it to be published. Amendment No. 493 would shift

that balance by requiring the STRB to publish the report. That would accelerate the process by avoiding any unnecessary delay, and ensure greater openness by preventing the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State from delaying or preventing publication at particular times for political purposes. I look forward to the Minister's comments.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West has dealt with amendment No. 493 in some detail. It is a fact that review body reports tend to drift until there is an occasion, such as Boxing day, when the Government—I do not mean just this Government—find publication convenient for political purposes or because they have decided what they will do as a result of the report. Publishing such reports on Boxing day may contribute to the Government's effective handling of press relations, but it would be much more open, as my hon. Friend suggested, for the report to be put in the public domain and for a period of public discussion to ensue before the Government reach conclusions.

During such a period, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough may want to use one of the Liberal Democrats' Supply days to debate the report. That is a matter for him, but I hope that it will not take place between Boxing day and new year's eve.

Amendment No. 496 relates to the proposals that the review body may make. It is important to reflect on the fact that the current teacher-supply position is probably one of the worst that we have ever experienced and it changes quickly. At the moment, it tends to move in a deleterious direction. Of course, that may not always be the case, but some schools find it incredibly difficult to recruit teachers in a very competitive market.

It would be unwise for the review body to impose at any stage a maximum on the salary that may be paid to any teacher or group of teachers. I am not saying that the review body has a recent history of so doing; that is not the case. The salaries of teachers, particularly super-teachers and super-heads, have tended to go up in leaps and bounds recently, which is an entirely good thing, but in many areas of the country recruitment is still difficult and retention even more so. We read in the pages of The Sun this morning about a class that has enjoyed the attention of 13 different teachers in 14 weeks—I may have got those numbers wrong.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

My hon. Friend is right.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thank my hon. Friend.

In my constituency, recruitment is difficult because teachers quite often come from families that rely on the earnings of two parties for their income. It is much more difficult to recruit a teacher to the island if there is no job there for his spouse, so special arrangements or negotiations for salaries may be appropriate in future. The review body needs to keep in mind the fact that setting upper limits on teachers' remuneration would be unwise. The best way for them to keep that in mind is for us to provide for it in the Bill.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

On the first amendment, it is appropriate that the legal duty falls on the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, as it always has. I heard the hon. Member for Isle of Wight's remarks about the danger of delay. To be fair, I do not believe that that happened under the previous Government, and it has certainly not happened under this one. I do not believe there is a need to change the system. The STRB reports are produced to a public timetable; that is indicated in the remit letter sent by the Secretary of State. The full consultation process then begins. That is how it has worked for 10 years. I see no reason for change; it has not caused any difficulty.

I turn to the second amendment to which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight spoke. Pay scales and progression up pay scales has been a key part of schools' and teachers' pay systems since the beginning. By definition, pay scales have maximums; otherwise, there would be little purpose in the pay review system. The hon. Gentleman suggested that there should not be a maximum at the top of the scale. There is already a great deal of flexibility to pay additional allowances to teachers; for example, for recruitment and retention; more responsibility brings additional allowances and successful teachers can access the upper pay scales and progress upwards. It is part of the review body's role to set the top of the scale as well as the other parts of the arrangements.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am again grateful to the Minister for his helpful comments and for his assurances of good faith on the first amendment regarding publication dates. I hope that Ministers will continue to receive prompt publication of these reports.

The Minister's objection to amendment No. 496 seemed to centre on the question of pay scales and the need to fix an upper limit on a particular pay scale. Had the amendment been drafted in such a way as to prevent a maximum level of pay being fixed for teachers without the reference to ''any group of teachers'', he would have found it easier to accept. The object of the amendment was to ensure that no artificial constraint or limitation is placed on schools' ability to recruit the teachers they need, particularly in the current difficult climate of recruitment and retention across the country, and especially in certain areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight mentioned. I do not seek to press the amendment to a Division and I beg the Committee's leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 117 - Consultation by review body

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 494, in page 73, line 11, after 'schools' insert—

'( ) bodies representing the interests of parents'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 495, in page 73, line 11, after 'schools' insert—

'( ) bodies representing the interests of independent schools funded by the Secretary of State.'.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Here, we deal with the review body's consultation of outside bodies during its deliberations. Amendment No. 494 seeks to ensure that the interests of parents are taken into account by including a new paragraph specifying that bodies representing parents' interests should be included as statutory consultees.

Amendment No. 495 recognises the degree to which, through the previous Government's promotion of city technology colleges, the development of that model, and now, under this Bill, the potential to broaden them into academies, a far more diverse pattern of educational provision is beginning to emerge. Part of that pattern is a relatively new creature: an independent school that is funded by the Secretary of State.

An academy is an independent school that derives its revenue as if it were a maintained school. The schools will clearly have different challenges, and take different approaches from other schools in the maintained sector. The STRB should consider this separate category of schools with their potentially different needs and responsibilities when it draws its conclusions and makes its recommendations. That is especially so, given that many of those schools are likely to be in areas of particular difficulty where this kind of innovation has been encouraged precisely because of the difficulties faced. Such schools may, therefore, have a unique input, and their interests should be taken into account in a specific way. The amendment seeks to include that in the Bill.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The key point is that the parties listed in subsection (2) are under an obligation to implement what emerges from the STRB process in a way that the parties identified in the amendments are not. I therefore defend the arrangements, which are reproduced from the 1991 Act. I accept that other bodies that do not have the same obligations may have a less direct but nevertheless genuine interest in the STRB process.

Parents' groups and independent schools may have views, and I emphasise that there is nothing to stop those parties from submitting their views to the STRB in the light of the remit that the Secretary of State gave to it. That document is public, and people can see what the remit is. The STRB can of its own accord ask those or other interested bodies to present additional views orally. It would be inappropriate to put parents and independent schools that are not subject to the school teachers' pay and conditions document, however they are funded, on a par with LEAs, governing bodies and teachers' unions whose relationship with the STRB is different and more direct.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

When we discussed city academies during consideration of the Learning and Skills Bill, I secured an agreement from the Minister at the time that those academies would be subject to the same admissions arrangements and STRB findings as other community schools. I understand that the Minister wants 20 new academies up and running by the end of this Parliament. Is he now saying that the academies will be treated as independent schools, as the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said, and that they will not be subject to any of the STRB's findings?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

That is the case. The city academies will not—they do not yet exist—be subject to the findings of the STRB. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman to give him some more information on the subject.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I hope that the Minister will make that information available to all members of the Committee.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I am happy to give that assurance.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the Minister. It will be an interesting document setting out with greater clarity exactly what requirements will be placed upon city academies. Clearly, if they are not subject to the deliberations or the outcome of recommendations from the STRB, it would be inappropriate for them to be a statutory consultee in the decision making process. If they are expected to observe the recommendations of the review body, Ministers may wish to reconsider the matter. We await the Minister's more detailed exposition. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 118 - Power to prescribe pay and conditions

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 529, in page 73, line 35, at end insert—

'(except where it is agreed between the parties that a services contract is exempt from the provisions of this Part).'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 526, in page 73, line 39, after 'carry out' insert 'only'.

No. 527, in page 73, line 40, at end insert—

'(e) he carries out work of a kind which is specified by regulations under section 129(1) for part of his contracted hours, in which case powers under section 118 may be applied to that proportion of the contracted hours.'.

No. 528, in page 74, line 20, at end insert—

'( ) Nothing in this or other education legislation shall prevent a local education authority or governing body from employing a teacher on a contract for services.'.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

This clause and group of amendments are a little more substantial. There is a great deal of flesh to be put on the bones of the Government's thinking in regard to elements of this clause. The amendments seek to draw out the Minister's thoughts on the precise role of a school teacher, perhaps harking back to our earlier exchange on what defines their professional role. This is a matter of increasing interest to all those who are involved in education, those who represent teachers and the teachers themselves. Given that Ministers now seek to define the functions that must be carried out only by a qualified teacher and, by implication, those that need not, we are starting to clarify that grey area.

I remind the Minister of the difficulties that arose when the Secretary of State commented on the role of classroom assistants. Although Ministers were quick to try to redefine some of her remarks and were eager

to ensure that no one got the idea that classroom assistants would replace qualified teachers, aspects of the Bill go to the heart of the definition of the roles that are specific to qualified professional teachers and those that are not. The purpose is to draw out the Minister on exactly where that line should be, what aspects of a teacher's role he regards as being fundamental, what aspects are exclusively the remit of qualified teachers and which are not.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I would like to set out in a little more detail, the typical circumstances in which such a question might arise, and which reinforce the need for the Government to address the issues that have been raised by hon. Members in this amendment.

I want the Minister to consider the example of a large secondary school that chooses to hire a sports coach. Part of the time, during school hours, the coach will provide physical education or leadership of sporting activities that are part of the normal curriculum provided by the school, but at the same time, will provide some additional support to the school, perhaps outside school hours, in support of school teams and training activities. The coach might be contracted, not in a classic teaching role, but to provide both a contribution to the curriculum within the school and some support outside the school.

There are situations where such a role might be funded partly by a parental contribution and it might be funded within the school as part of the recognition that teachers cannot do everything. The person concerned would be contracted by the school separately from a normal teaching contract to provide a specific service to the school, but would be providing a service that would, in part, normally be expected to fall within the remit of a teacher. Therefore, it is conceivable to set out a situation where a teaching contract is covered by this clause. It might not be applicable to someone who is none the less providing part of the role as a classic teacher.

I should be grateful if, when the Minister addresses the comments that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, he would consider that kind of situation, and in doing so, think about whether the aspirations that are set out in this amendment might add merit to the structure of the clause and to the Bill.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell for his comments about the different roles that may be adopted by those who are sometimes employed as teachers, and at other times employed for other purposes. In the circumstance to which he referred, one can equally envisage that the person who is teaching part-time, might also be managing the facility, managing community use of the facility, and doing a whole range of things that do not fall easily within the teachers' pay and conditions arrangements.

I wanted to refer more particularly to amendments Nos. 528 and 529. Even if these amendments do not appeal to the Minister, I hope that they may appeal to Mr. Adonis, with whom I used to share membership of a school governing body. Some of his thoughts on these issues may drift in the same direction as mine.

One can envisage a number of circumstances where these amendments might be appropriate. Let us consider a school where one department is found to be failing. The rest of the school may be functioning effectively, but there may be serious weaknesses with the delivery of mathematics, for example. There may be a school down the road that is very effective at providing mathematic; it may be a state school, a city technology college or an independent school, or it may be an academy. One of those external institutions may be happy to assist in the provision of a mathematics teacher in that school, not merely by training, although that may be part of their function, but by being physically present in the classroom from time to time, or perhaps throughout a term, providing half the mathematics teaching in the school. They may be confident that they can continue to provide mathematics teaching in the home institution and be willing to let their teachers not merely oversee but teach mathematics in the classroom of a school that has serious difficulties, acting as the United States—perhaps I should say 3Es—cavalry riding to the rescue of a failing mathematics department.

In such circumstances, 3Es would not want to put members of its staff on a contract of employment with the school, as it may want to retain them for future contracts, but there must be a contract that enables the services to be provided by 3Es. That is what a service contract means. Such a contract could be used imaginatively to assist and rescue failing departments in schools, as it may not be possible in the time available to recruit enough new teachers or to retrain existing teachers without pupils losing two or three terms of education. Even one term of mathematics education lost is a serious drawback for the pupils affected, of whom there may be many in a large school.

Amendment No. 529 provides that such an arrangement would, if the parties agreed and even if only one teacher were involved, be outwith the determination of pay and conditions made by the Secretary of State, because those teachers would undertake additional work and expect additional remuneration, which might be appropriate.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the people whom 3Es, for example, bring in to run the mathematics department of a school in the Isle of Wight, because teachers have been put off, having met the MP—

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

That was before the election.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

That was after the election. Does the amendment mean that the terms and conditions of those employed by 3Es who are sent to a particular department would be disapplied? Would they not have to conform to professional qualifications and be registered members of the GTC?

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I had not envisaged that when I considered the amendment; I shall have to think about that proposition.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I apologise for my flippant comment; I am sure everyone loves the hon. Gentleman. If teachers are registered members of the GTC, the teacher being brought in would be no different from a

teacher employed through a supply agency who was sent to a school for a particular purpose.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It could indeed be a supply agency that provides the teachers, and there is nothing wrong in such an agency maintaining teams of teachers—a group of physicists, mathematicians or media-studies enthusiasts who operate well together, for example. That would provide flexibility in any attempt to improve failing schools. For that reason alone this is a worthwhile proposition, and I should be interested in the views of the Minister and his hon. Friends.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Nothing in the Bill prevents employment on a contract for services, so the amendment would not add anything to the measure. Orders made under clause 118 will form part of the contract of employment for teachers, and will override any locally agreed terms, as such orders do now, except in a limited number of cases in which pay and conditions have been or could be disapplied. It might be worth spelling those out. We are talking about ex-GM schools that opted out—a very small number chose to do so—education action zone schools that opt out, schools with earned autonomy under this Bill, and any school that uses the Bill's innovation clauses to disapply aspects of national pay and conditions.

On amendment No. 529, where this part of the Bill applies to a teacher, it will not be possible for a local agreement to override a pay and conditions order, as that would undermine the national system.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I will try to paraphrase, and the Minister will tell me if I am wrong. There is nothing wrong with employing a teacher on a services contract. That is permissible, but subsection (3)(b) provides that such a person is a schoolteacher and therefore subject to the maximum pay scales—I had thought that they did not exist, but the Minister assured us that they do—and all other terms and conditions as prescribed by the clause. It would not be possible, for example, to recruit a team of super mathematicians from 3Es and pay them a bit more to do two jobs at once. That is not exactly what such teachers do, but they would be maintaining the mathematics provision in the home school as well as undertaking such teaching for the school in need. They would not do that without receiving reasonable recognition, and schools with such a weakness would not be able to benefit, certainly not quickly, from the earned autonomy or other opt-outs that the Minister described.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman lost me slightly in that intervention. I do not think that there is an obstacle to the arrangement such as he envisaged, and it is possible for such a contract to be entered into. The orders that are envisaged in the Bill apply to contracts with LEAs and governing bodies of schools, but not elsewhere. The freedom to which he alluded is available.

Amendments Nos. 526 and 527 are highly prescriptive. Amendment No. 526 would mean that a qualified teacher could carry out only the specified

work if they were to be paid as a qualified teacher. Amendment No. 527 would mean that a teacher would be paid as a qualified teacher only for the proportion of his or her time that was spent carrying out specified work that only a qualified teacher can do. That may not have been the intention, but it would be the effect. The difficulty is not only with the choice of words in the amendments, but with the intent behind them. They would create an unhelpful incentive for teachers to avoid taking on other tasks even when, from everyone's point of view, it would make sense to do so.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I accept the Minister's difficulty with the drafting of the amendments, but I repeat my invitation to explore the definitions of work that should be limited to teachers and work that could be carried out by others.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

That is a fair point, and we will do that when we come to clause 129. We provided more information to the Committee with the policy statement on teacher qualifications that was distributed on Tuesday, and we may want to debate some of the issues in it.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Does the Minister accept the need for greater clarification on what I call sub-contracting? Under the 1993 arrangements, further education colleges were incorporated, which allowed institutions to set different pay and conditions. A difficult situation arose in many colleges, and the supply of contract teachers through agencies escalated. When the Minister offers guidance, would he reflect on the fact that teachers do not simply come into a maths department to teach maths? They are part of a broader spectrum of activities offered by the school, and I hope that that was what the Minister implied. A teacher cannot divorce a maths lesson from personal and social education or the exercise of duties throughout the school. I trust the Minister will not be sucked into that awful practice of considering teachers as just contracted employees.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the characteristics of schools and working in them. Any such arrangement would be made only if the head teacher decided that it would help to improve standards. The head would want to take into account all the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. Currently, agency staff are not eligible for national pay and conditions. Someone employed in the normal way is eligible for national pay and conditions, which is what the orders relate to.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

That is an important issue. The comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight about the article in The Sun raise serious concern. During the last three years, the number of teaching staff working through agencies has increased, because they can get plenty of work and do not have to undertake the host of other responsibilities that accompany the teaching role. All the political parties, and particularly the Government, must think before encouraging contract work in schools, because it would undermine the fabric of state sector education.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

We do not want to encourage contract work, but we do not want to put up unnecessary barriers to it.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

We need a balance.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman is right. I would like as many vacancies as possible to be filled by regular teachers. However, in recent months we have not seen the disruption in schools that was a feature of recruitment and retention problems under Conservative Governments, when children were sent home and schools were seriously disrupted. That has not happened partly because the supply arrangements in many schools have worked quite well. That is the balance that I hope we will strike successfully.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

None of us wants teaching services to be provided in the way described by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. However, there are only two ways of reducing a shortage: the first is to make terms and conditions less onerous, and the second is to make those terms better. The Minister told

us that even under contract, the terms cannot be made better than the national arrangements, except in certain—[Interruption.]—He said that a teacher under contract is subject to the national pay and conditions arrangements except in the opt outs that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough described.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I am conscious that we have only a few seconds remaining. If the teacher is on contract and employed by someone else, the provisions do not have to apply. If the teacher is employed by the school in the ordinary way, they do.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman, adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee G

Clause 118 - Power to prescribe pay and conditions

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 526, in page 73, line 39, after ''carry out'' insert ''only''.

Amendment No. 527, in page 73, line 40, at end insert:

''(e) he carries out work of a kind which is specified by regulations under section 129(1) for part of his contracted hours, in which case powers under section 118 may be applied to that proportion of the contracted hours.''.

Amendment No. 528, in page 74, line 20, at end insert:

''( ) Nothing in this or other education legislation shall prevent a local education authority or governing body from employing a teacher on a contract for services.''.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Before we adjourned, I was about to say how grateful we are for the Minister's comments on the amendments. He gave some useful assurances; for example, that there will be a more detailed exposition under clause 129 of the Government's thinking on the work that is reserved for teachers. We look forward to that discussion.

We also received greater clarification about teachers employed on a contract of services. The assurance that schools are already permitted to employ teachers on such a basis means that amendment No. 528 is not necessary, but the discussion that ensued about the rules pertaining to pay and conditions for such teachers was helpful.

I am happy with the assurance of further discussion under clause 129 and, with the useful information that we have gleaned, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: Before we move on, I should just say that, in the event of a miracle that gets us to the end of today's business, we will have a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee to cancel Monday's sitting. That may be an incentive to hon. Members.Clause 119Order under section 118: scope

Clause 119 - Order under section 118: scope

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

In the spirit of your guidance, Mr. Griffiths, we have already discussed the central point of amendment No. 523 regarding the upper and lower limits to be set by the STRB. There would be no useful purpose in further discussion and, therefore, I do not intend to move the amendment.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 514, in page 75, line 1, leave out '(b)' and insert:

''(2A)An order under section 118 may.''

I will keep my discussion as brief as possible, having cognisance of your advice, Mr. Griffiths. The Committee can have me for the whole afternoon, as I was kicked off the ''Richard and Judy'' sofa. I gather that the viewing figures will plummet as a result.

The amendment is important because clause 118 is wide ranging and gives significant additional powers to the Secretary of State, as we discovered in the debate this morning. The amendment proposes that any order under clause 118 may be bargained rather than determined through the full review body structure. I hope that the Minister agrees to the amendment because, although formal structures exist for that purpose, the more that can be done through informal bargaining, the better. It speeds up the process, gets a better decision and satisfies all the parties. I trust that the Minister will support this minor amendment.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The amendment is rather less minor than the hon. Gentleman has suggested. It would give my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the power to determine that any matters that were the subject of a pay order, rather than just the specific items listed, should be settled by agreement at local level. That would wholly undermine the School Teachers Review Body process. We do not want to move wholly to local negotiation. It is appropriate for some elements, but we do not want to impose on schools the burden and difficulty of doing everything locally rather than through the STRB mechanism as at present. That would lead to significant discrepancies between different parts of the country, which would concern some Committee members.

The current process works well and is fair and independent. It is appropriate for a professional group in the public sector such as teachers. I oppose the amendment on the grounds that we do not want to move to a system in which all the matters are determined locally.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

That is exactly the response that I expected from the Minister, who has seen through this minor amendment. It has, however, enabled us to

establish that the Government are not clear on where they want to go on the issue. On one hand, they want innovation and earned autonomy, which includes moving away from pay and conditions, but on the other, they want a control system through the STRB. I support the national framework, so I support the Minister on that point, but there is a clear contradiction between the Government's spin on freedoms and the controls at the other end. The Minister has spotted the extent of the amendment, which has been debated. 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. 515, in page 75, line 10, leave out subsection (4).

I confess that this is a major and important amendment. Clause 119 tells the Secretary of State that she has unprecedented powers over the areas concerning teachers' pay and conditions, which is not a good thing. This morning, I mentioned the Labour party's commitment to the International Labour Organisation convention. It signed the 1998 convention, but with virtually everything that it does in the public sector, it is moving away from such conventions. That direction may be a clear policy, and it may come from the No. 10 policy unit, which the Secretary of State must abide by, but we should challenge it and caution people about it.

The provision in the Bill would get over the problems that the Government had in 2000 with the National Union of Teachers in the High Court, when they tried unilaterally to introduce performance-related pay by arguing that the amendment was so minor that they did not need to consult the STRB or the professional associations or seek affirmative resolution in the House.

I accept that there is some transparency with the STRB and that, as the Minister said, it has, by and large, worked reasonably well over the past 10 years. It is important for me to acknowledge that on the record, too. One attraction is that all the evidence that goes to the STRB is transparent and published. We see the Government's evidence, for what the professional associations are bidding and what the local authorities want. It is all published and above board. However, clause 119 will go further than that. It will allow the Secretary of State to decide what is a minor matter. It will not be good to have all the powers with the Secretary of State, no matter how good the current one is.

In answer to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) who said this morning that it would be good for teachers, I now have figures. In 1992, the average teacher's pay was worth 118 per cent. of average non-manual salaries; by 2001, that had fallen to 108 per cent. A 10 per cent. drop may not seem that much to the hon. Gentleman with his vast wealth

coming out of South Shields, but it is for teachers. Teachers' salaries during that period have not been as generous as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe. He has had a sheltered existence in the No. 10 policy unit, but even he will know that year on year, the staged pay awards to which teachers were subjected under the previous Government made a significant difference to their overall rise in earnings. Giving teachers staged pay awards to meet the Exchequer's demands was an abominable way of treating them.

The amendment would remove subsection (4) and curtail the powers of the Secretary of State. It would mean that she could not decide on all the issues herself; she would have to go through the process of the STRB or get affirmative resolutions. That would be a good protection for teachers, and I hope that the Minister will see its sense and agree to the amendment.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) raised several matters in moving the amendment, and I shall respond to some of them at least. Removing subsection (4) would not have an impact on the NUT judicial review. There are measures in other clauses, particularly in clause 121, that would have an impact, but subsection (4) does not. He said that we were taking unprecedented powers, but that is not true. There is nothing new, and the subsection is simply a replication of what was in the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991.

The hon. Gentleman referred also to the STRB process. He will acknowledge that STRB recommendations since 1997 have been met in full. There has been a 25 per cent. increase in the salary of good, experienced teachers during that time. Things have gone well, and the STRB process has been an important element. As he did this morning, he raised the question of the International Labour Organisation. We satisfy the ILO entirely on our approach to these matters.

The amendment would not benefit teachers. There will be circumstances in which the flexibility that subsection (4) permits will be helpful. It will allow payments to be made to teachers that are not part of remuneration and can be determined locally. For example, golden hellos can be paid, and other one-off payments that are not appropriate for consideration by the STRB because of their limited effect and lifespan require the flexibility. It is important that matters that are not core professional duties or working time may be determined locally, a point that the hon. Gentleman made recently. To remove that flexibility would not help. I hope that he will accept my explanation and withdraw the amendment.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The matter will be raised again during consideration of clause 121. Having heard the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 121 - Reference to review body

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 121, in page 75, line 43, leave out subsections (3)(a), (b) and (c).

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 122, in page 76, line 16, after ''118'', insert ''or 121''.

No. 500, in page 76, line 16, after ''section 118'' insert:

''nor may he make an order under subsection (4) of section 121''.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Amendment No. 121 would remove the Secretary of State's new powers over the pay and conditions of every teacher in the land. The Secretary of State should justify why those powers are needed as well as the current powers that are provided through the School Teachers Pay Review Body.

Amendment No. 500 recognises that the Secretary of State is trying to overcome a High Court decision granted in favour of the National Union of Teachers. I know that the Secretary of State did not like the High Court action, and I understand why. However, an important point of principle is at stake, which the legislation will overturn. Whether we like or dislike the STRB and the Act that created it, it is an open and transparent system. The Secretary of State will now decide whether an issue is serious enough for her to avoid the affirmative resolution procedure, or consultation through the STRB. The Secretary of State alone can make those decisions, which must set alarm bells ringing for every Committee member. If a Secretary of State has those powers, she will use them because they circumvent a lot of hassle.

The purpose of the amendments is to point out that the powers are unnecessary, and that it should not be the Secretary of State who decides unilaterally that a change is minor. It should be the partners in the agreement who take that decision. None of us would be happy if we had reached agreement, whether we liked it or not, and then found that one party wanted to vary it because that suited their purpose.

In many cases, there will not be any disagreement. Many of the variations to the STRB's recommendation during the last 10 years have gone through without needing an affirmative resolution, and without needing to exercise such powers because there has been general agreement. We cannot believe that every Secretary of State will act in such a benign way. I remind Government Members of what happened between 1988 and 1997. Draconian legislation was passed at that time, part of which had a serious effect on teachers and the morale in our schools, and we are still struggling with that, if I am honest. That is not just a new phenomenon.

I hope that the Minister will take the amendments as a whole rather than spend a lot of time on each one, and that he will respond to the principal issue that I

have raised about the Secretary of State overcoming the High Court action and trying to legislate to give herself more powers.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The issues with which the clause deals have been worked through with the support of the STRB and in recognition of the concern expressed by the chairman of the STRB to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that its work load had become too burdensome. In 1991, when the STRB was established, it was never intended that it should be expected to deal with every detail of matters relating to pay and conditions. Given the voluntary nature of that body, it would be unreasonable to expect it to do so.

The 1991 Act sought to make provision for the Secretary of State to deal with some matters. However, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough reminded the Committee, experience showed that the wording of the Act was insufficient to enable that to take place. Subsections (3)(a) and (b) were drawn up in the light of that experience. We plan to ensure that the matters covered by those subsections relate to the criteria for entering or leaving the fast-track teaching programme, advanced skills teacher status, and the standards for crossing the threshold to the upper pay scale. Criteria and standards on all those matters already exist. We are talking about any amendments or revisions that may be necessary. No such changes are currently planned. The Secretary of State set those standards without reference to the STRB until the July 2000 High Court judgment on the NUT case. That state of affairs was generally accepted. We are proposing to return to the position that almost everyone thought prevailed.

I listened with interest to the points made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. The proposed arrangement is unusual, and is an example of the Henry VIII powers that are frequently, and usually erroneously, referred to in our debates. This is the real thing. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about a provision that allows the Secretary of State to use secondary legislation to amend provisions of the Act. I want to reflect on his point, and to consider how we could achieve a requirement for specific consultation in any cases in which clause 121, including subsection (5), applies. I shall revisit the issue after such consideration if that is appropriate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find that a helpful response to his concerns.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

That is a more than helpful response to my concerns. I am glad that the Minister recognises that the guidance and the criteria that were created as a result of the threshold assessment were far-reaching. It is important to have good mechanisms. I regard the clause as a Baroness Thatcher clause rather than a Henry VIII clause. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 123 - Guidance

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 501, in page 76, line 29, leave out 'an employer' and substitute:

'a local authority or the governing body of a school'.

This is a simple amendment, and I hope that the Minister will see the sense of it. Either the local authority or the governing body will be the employer, except for contract staff, which is the issue that we are talking about at the moment. However, even in those circumstances it will be the governing body or the local education authority that buys in the contract staff, unless we privatise the whole of our education system. In which case the employer would, I presume, be a private sector contractor.

In Islington, for example, I do not know whether the Cambridge Education Associates or Islington council employs the staff. I presume that Islington local education authority actually employs the staff.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The teaching staff.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Yes, the teaching staff. The Government may well move away from that in the future. They may envisage the whole-scale privatisation of parts of the system.

Independent schools will be set up under later provisions of the Bill on academies, and there will be nothing to stop 3Es, to which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) referred this morning, setting up such a school. The Minister let slip, perhaps deliberately, that that company will not be subject to any of the terms and conditions of the STRB. Therefore, it will become a separate employer.

I would like a belt and braces approach to be taken, and to tighten up the provision by specifying in subsection (3) the local education authority and the governing body as the employer. The amendment would ensure consistency of legislation, and that a court would take into account any failure on the part of the governing body or the local education authority to follow the guidance.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The hon. Gentleman speculated about Islington, and things may have changed since April last year. I think that in the London borough of Southwark, when the nursery school provisions of the current contract take effect, nursery schoolteachers will be employed by W.S. Atkins.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I confess that I am not fully aware of the situation in Southwark, but I think the hon. Gentleman's comment backs up the point that I am making. We should have consistency in this clause, because if something goes wrong and there is an employment problem, an individual needs to have redress through the appropriate body. The guidance that is given to the LEA or the governing body as the employer should be consistent. That is what I am trying to achieve with this amendment.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I am delighted to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr. Griffiths.

In a sense, the hon. Gentleman answered the question himself. His amendment is not necessary, because for any pay and conditions order under clause 118, the employer must be either a local education authority or a governing body. If there were any confusion or doubt about whether the local education authority or the governing body had failed to follow guidance on some employment issue, it would be irrelevant who failed to fulfil those responsibilities. It could be of concern if someone had failed to fulfil responsibilities under employment law. What would be relevant in any employment tribunal or litigation would be who the employer of the individual was.

As I said, for any pay and conditions order under clause 118 the employer has to be the local education authority or the governing body. It does not refer to any other set of circumstances. On that basis, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

On a point of clarification, is it possible to employ teaching staff through a company formed by the governing body under chapter 3 powers? Would such employment be deemed to be by the governing body, or would it be a way of circumventing the application of the section?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

It would depend on the company's role, but the staff would be employees of the governing body, so what I said earlier would still apply. The employer must be the LEA or the governing body.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), because he has again put his finger on the issue. If it is so clear that the employer will be either the local education authority or the governing body, why should it not be specified in the Bill? There should be absolutely no problem with that.

The amendment would ensure that any sub-contracting goes through the governing body or the LEA. That is an important safeguard. I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that the Minister will review our exchange and consider whether it would be better to include the proposal in the Bill.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am intervening not because the hon. Gentleman spoke so kindly about my intervention, but because I have an inkling that, if he were to wait just a moment before withdrawing the amendment, he would get greater clarity from the Minister.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The hon. Gentleman's wisdom is profound, but I think that the Minister has concluded his remarks.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I will probably regret this. However, I will give a specific example that might clarify the matter. We had a debate this morning about teachers who provide cover and are employed by agencies. They are not covered by pay legislation or bound by national pay and conditions. Thus, the guidance under clause 123 is not relevant to them, and they are not bound by the order.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough agreed to withdraw the amendment. This is not a question of belt and braces. It is straightforward: no other employer is covered by clause 118, other than the local education authority and the governing body. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I think that the Minister may regret standing up at that point. In all seriousness and to be helpful, this provision of the Bill is deficient. It deals with the employment of people who work in our schools, but it does not take into account the different organisations that will result from earned autonomy and powers to innovate. We will leave ourselves open to a significant number of challenges in the courts, which are incredibly unhelpful in running our schools.

I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that the Ministers and their officials will reflect on this provision to determine whether it covers the eventualities that they have provided for in the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 123 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 124 - Education action zone

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I beg to move amendment No. 343, in page 77, line 3, leave out 'employed to work'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 344, 345 and 346.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

These amendments are relatively straightforward, and are designed to achieve a particular objective. If a school in an education action zone opts out of national pay and conditions arrangements, all teachers employed by the governing body or the LEA will be covered by the new arrangements that are then set up. It is important to make that clear. It will include teachers employed under a contract for services, such as some supply teachers, as well as those employed under contracts of employment by the local education authority or the governing body. The objective of the original wording is no different, but these amendments remove any doubt. On that basis, I ask hon. Members to accept them.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I seek some clarification from the Minister. If a school under either earned autonomy or the powers to innovate transfers to a company in the private sector, which we have established it can do, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employers) arrangements would then come into force. Would those arrangements bind the incoming organisation to maintain the pay and conditions of the transferred staff, and if so, for how long?

Mr. Lewis: That might occur in an academy. In those circumstances the TUPE arrangements would apply. As for the length of time, I will need to take further advice and I will let the hon. Gentleman know.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 344, in page 77, line 6, leave out 'employed to work'.

No. 345, in page 77, line 11, leave out 'is employed to work' and insert 'works'.

No. 346, in page 77, line 14, leave out 'employed to work'.—[Mr. Ivan Lewis.]

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

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

This gives me an opportunity to ask the Minister to clarify the position of schools in education action zones, which, as I understood from a recent press release, are to be incorporated into the excellence in cities scheme, and in particular the position of schools in rural education action zones where the word ''cities'' does not apply. Have I simply allowed myself to be deluded by statements in the popular press or are the Government withdrawing the education action zone scheme?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

There have recently been incidents of hon. Members being deluded by what they read in the press, but I do not think that this is one of them. Education action zones were always going to have a finite life. They were originally set up for three years. They have all been extended for a further two years, so will run for five years. At the end of that period they will close. We have taken many of the successful features of initiatives in the action zones and built them into the excellence in cities programme, which will continue.

The basis for the excellence in cities action zones is rather different. They will not be statutory zones like education action zones, but I expect them to adopt similar approaches. We will certainly learn lessons from what education action zones have successfully achieved. The hon. Gentleman also asked about rural areas. The excellence in cities programme provides for excellence clusters to target disadvantage in rural areas. They are, by definition, not in cities, so the programme can tackle rural disadvantage as well.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thank the Minister for that helpful statement, but will he clarify the purpose of the clause? It seems to apply to something that is disappearing: perhaps it will cease to apply when it actually disappears. What will happen to the assets and liabilities of education action zones, which I understand are bodies corporate?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

As I said, education action zones will continue until 2005, which is why the powers are needed until then. In that year they will become redundant and exit strategies for the zones will be drawn up to deal with assets and liabilities. The assets are likely to be mainly in schools, which will probably hang on to them, although some may be transferred to

LEAs. A variety of arrangements will be made, but all zones will have exit strategies to ensure an orderly transition.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 124, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 125 and 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 12 agreed to.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Before we move on to the next group of amendments, I should like to announce that at our previous sitting a mistake was made on the order of the two groups of amendments to clause 129. When we reach that clause, the amendments grouped with amendment No. 502 will be called first.Clause 127 Appraisal

Clause 127 - Appraisal

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I beg to move amendment No. 347, in page 78, line 17, leave out

'The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring'

and insert 'Regulations may require'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this we may take the following Government amendments: Nos. 348 to 358, 360 to 362, 364 to 373, 375, 377 to 379, 381 to 387, 389 and clause 141 stand part.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

This apparently complex group of technical amendments make minor and technical changes to the powers of the National Assembly for Wales. I hope that hon. Members will have found helpful my document setting out how the Bill will look if the Government amendments are carried this afternoon.

I am pleased to introduce these amendments because they greatly clarify the drafting with regard to the powers of the National Assembly for Wales and the Secretary of State. This part of the Bill adopts the approach of allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations. Clause 141 states that certain references to the Secretary of State should be taken to refer to the National Assembly of Wales.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) argued that that approach to the drafting made it more difficult to understand the National Assembly's position. He said that the clause reminded him of the famous reference in ''Encyclopaedia Britannica''—''For Wales, see England''. He was right, and his approach to drafting prompted a rethink. I agree that the teacher provisions are more difficult to interpret in relation to Wales. The amendments are designed to make the drafting consistent with the remainder of the Bill.

This large group of amendments provides, where appropriate, that powers may be exercised by the Secretary of State in relation to England and by the National Assembly in relation to Wales. Clause 141 therefore becomes unnecessary. I hope that members

of the Committee will agree that consistency throughout the Bill is important, and that the amendments help to clarify the position.

These amendments make clause 141 redundant. The approach to powers of regulation when the Bill was first introduced was to provide in each clause that the Secretary of State should make regulations. As I said, clause 141 states that certain references to the Secretary of State should be taken as a reference to the National Assembly in respect of Wales. Similar provision is made with respect to the General Teaching Council for England and the Teacher Training Agency. That approach is different from the one taken in the rest of the Bill and has been confusing. The large group of amendments will overcome the problem and make clause 141 unnecessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 516, in page 78, line 30, at the end insert

'otherwise than a function relating to remuneration.'

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this we may take amendment No. 517, in page 78, line 34, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

(5) A report of relevant matters arising from the results of an appraisal may, with the consent of the teacher to whom the appraisal relates, be used in determining a teacher's remuneration.'.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

These are two important probing amendments, which I shall treat separately.

I was a practising head teacher—well, I was a head teacher, what I practised is another matter--when the Education Act 1986 was passed. Section 49 of that Act dealt with appraisal. I know that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) was a member of a senior management team at that time—no, he was probably still at school then. Appraisal caused a great hullabaloo in the 1980s, and what transpired was a farce.

As a head teacher, I could choose my appraiser, who had to be a critical friend. A member of the local advisory staff came in, and I can recall that he was worried about his future. I virtually wrote my own appraisal, submitted it and—surprise, surprise—everyone agreed that I was doing a wonderful job. In reality I probably was not, though I am sure members of the Committee will find that impossible to visualise. I hope that this does not become another diary piece, but drawing from one's own experience is often the best way of illustrating an issue.

It is crucial for appraisal to lie at the heart of school improvement. Without quality appraisal it is impossible to move forward. The sad thing about the Government's introduction of performance management—particularly thresholds—was that it involved two different issues, which the amendment picks up on. One was appraisal; the other was performance-related pay. I believe that they are fundamentally different.

Many of the world's top blue chip companies have abandoned performance-related pay in favour of a total quality management methodology, which is about achieving constant incremental improvement in performance. None of the teaching unions and no one I have met—apart from some people on the extremes—fail to understand that constant appraisal aimed at securing small improvements must be at the heart of what we are trying to achieve.

In some of our most demanding schools—sadly, the Government call them failing schools—the challenges are massive, so small incremental steps are often massive. We sometimes do not recognise how difficult it is to get the ship to move at all. One of the worries I have about the Bill is that the Government appear to believe that performance-related pay can be used as a lever to drive up standards. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether that is true. If that is their belief, they will fail.

If the Government want hard appraisal, Ofsted and audit facilities are part and parcel of school culture. Mike Tomlinson deserves enormous praise for turning round the attitude of Ofsted, and I wish the new chief inspector well. Teachers recognise that they are accountable for what they do in the classroom, and that they cannot close the door, declare the classroom their kingdom and forbid anyone entrance. I want to build on that.

We are in danger of losing the best elements of appraisal by linking it with performance-related pay. In the Minister's Department, I suspect the best work goes on when people admit that they are not achieving something and systems can be put in place to support them. My greatest difficulty as a head was getting staff to tell me when they were not coping and needed help. Good appraisal is about allowing that to happen. The problem with linking it to performance-related pay is that people are less likely to admit to deficiencies.

Through the amendments, I want to probe the Minister on what will happen to the appraisal documents. Clearly, the head teacher or line manager should be part of the appraisal system. At the moment, a governor can ask to see the appraisal documentation for any teacher in the school. That is not acceptable, and I want to hear the Government's view on that. If there were a post in a school as head of the maths department and a teacher from the school applied, the governors could ask at the interview for the appraisal documentation, whereas the person from 3Es that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight recommended would not have to reveal that information. That is grossly unfair. The Government have to determine who has access to the documentation and for what purpose.

Amendment No. 517 goes further. It would insert the provision:

''A report of relevant matters arising from the results of an appraisal may, with the consent of the teacher to whom the appraisal relates, be used in determining a teacher's remuneration.''

That would establish whether the appraisal document could be used as substantive evidence in determining whether a teacher should receive extra pay. One of my concerns about the clause is that teaching is not an individual activity. It depends enormously on the

corporate activities in the school. One cannot divorce what happens to a group of young people from the actions of other teachers and other young people. I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurance, and will let us know the Government's thinking on performance management and how far the Government intend to go with performance-related pay.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I listened with interest to the comments made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. Although I share many of his concerns about the somewhat clumsy way that the Government have introduced performance-related pay and some of the difficulties that have been created within schools, I do not think that these two amendments would enhance the legislation. In many ways, they would create complications for the workings of individual classrooms. I have to take issue with his comment about a number of major international organisations having moved away from performance-related pay. That may be true in individual cases, but it is certainly not the case that top commercial organisations have moved away from the principle of reward for excellent performance.

I shall explain why I am concerned about the two amendments, and I will take them in reverse order. Amendment No. 517 creates an almost impossible situation for a head teacher, and I am sure that that was not intended. The amendment states:

''A report of relevant matters arising from the results of an appraisal may, with the consent of the teacher to whom the appraisal relates, be used in determining a teacher's remuneration''

The literal meaning of the amendment would be that, had the hon. Gentleman, when he was a head teacher, carried out an appraisal on a teacher whom he decided was under-performing and should not be recommended for a salary advancement that year, that teacher's consent would have to be sought before that decision could be taken.

The amendment would create an impossible position for a head teacher who would have to take a decision for negative rather than positive performers. I appreciate that this would not be a problem in the reverse situation, where there was a proposal to enhance a teacher's salary, particularly for excellent performance. In instances where it might be necessary to say, ''You are not doing a good enough job, and I want to see more improvement before I am willing to see your salary rise.'' the this amendment would constrain the head teacher from taking that step.

Amendment No. 516 would insert the words:

''otherwise than a function related to remuneration''.

I can understand that in principle, but in reality, within a large school, there would inevitably be some delegation within the appraisal process. The delegation may go to the extremes that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough described, but to legislate against delegation—the ability of a departmental head to ask his deputy to carry out the appraisal for a new member of staff—would have a negative effect on the workings of the school. Although I understand and agree that, in a

good management environment, it might not be desirable to delegate an appraisal, there are occasions in every organisation—whether in education, the private sector or the public sector—when it is unavoidable. I would anxious legislating to prevent that.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has said, there is a legitimate debate about the link between performance-related pay and appraisals. However, I am not sure that his contribution to the debate was consistent with the outcome and effect of his amendments. I shall discuss the general issue.

In my view, if we are to have a credible performance-related pay system that is transparent, and that people feel is fair—for those who do not accept that performance-related pay is a good thing, this is an entirely different debate—then surely there must be a reasonable and evidential base for decisions. In those circumstances, it would be ludicrous to divorce decisions about the level of pay linked to performance from a strategic, credible and school-wide approach to appraisal. Both processes must be carried out on a relatively consistent basis.

The hon. Gentleman referred to schools that have particular difficulties or are in difficult circumstances, and the performance of their teachers. We would all accept that, despite the fact that performance indicators such as exam results sometimes take time to improve in those schools, many of their teachers do an extremely good job daily. Some teachers will do a better job than others; that is the nature of any workplace. However, the hon. Gentleman implied that in those schools, it would not be recognised that teachers were offering a value-added service to their students and that there would not be the flexibility to recognise that through appraisal and, consequently, performance-related pay.

That does not accurately reflect what happens. There are particularly difficult circumstances in those schools and teachers work extremely hard to raise standards to the level that we would expect. Under the appraisal and performance-related pay system, there is the flexibility to recognise the contributions of individual teachers in those settings.

Performance-related pay is one legitimate lever to raise standards in our schools generally and in individual schools, although it is not the only or the predominant one. As I understand it, there is a considerable amount of flexibility and discretion for head teachers in making decisions about individual teachers' performances. I think that two particular objectives are set: one relates to pupil performance and the other relates to professional development and commitment to personal development and training.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough described his early experiences of performance management and said that it had been introduced in a cack-handed, amateur and

unfortunate way, but the education system and other public services have moved on. There is a far greater understanding by professional leadership about how to put in place sensitively and professionally a performance-management framework that works, is seen to be fair, and recognises individual teachers' contributions.

Amendment No. 517 refers to

''the consent of the teacher''.

The hon. Gentleman talked about a critical friend coming into the school, how everything was very cosy and that the appraisal said that he was doing a brilliant job. If the arrangements were voluntary, it is difficult to imagine that most teachers who had not received a particularly good appraisal—[Interruption.] We must accept that during an appraisal, there are often significant differences of opinion. We all know that that applies to occasions on which head teachers or anyone in a leadership position has to make judgments about someone. At the end of the process, the individual concerned does not always entirely agree with the conclusion. However, as the hon. Gentleman often reminds us, we must respect the professionalism of teachers and head teachers. Head teachers are paid to be managers and leaders, which partly involves undertaking appraisals, putting in place a proper performance-management system and doing a variety of things that ultimately contribute towards raising standards in the school. Therefore, the two amendments cannot be accepted.

I do not see how we can run performance-related and appraisal systems without linking the two. It would undermine their credibility. The appraisal process is in some ways the only formal, strategic way in which a head teacher can use evidence, rather than a whim or other criteria, to make judgements about individuals. Having to go through the appraisal process requires certain disciplines, including objectivity, transparency and an understanding of how one will be judged and the process that will be used, so there is every justification and logic for linking it to performance-related pay. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am enormously saddened at the Minister's reply. I said that the amendments were probing, and I hope that he will reflect on his comments. He made the powerful statement that pay in schools in England and Wales will in future be subjected to a performance-related regime. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) mentioned other private sector organisations. I stand to be corrected on this, but almost every private sector organisation that continues to have performance-related pay has an identifiable product on which to judge the performance of its employees. It can be profits or the number of units, widgets or whatever, but that is the case.

The other criterion for performance-related pay is having no glass ceiling for what people can earn. As soon as a limiting factor for performance bonuses is introduced, the whole scheme is undermined, which has been a problem in the past. As a head teacher, I had performance points to give out—they were introduced

by the previous Government—but I had only two for the whole school. It was impossible to decide which two teachers should get those points.

We are talking not about appraisal, but performance-related pay. That is at the heart of the Government's vision for the modern teaching profession. Before I sit down, will the Minister guarantee that every school will have the resources to reward the teachers who go through the various hoops? I know that the Minister cannot promise that, because he knows that the Chancellor would not allow him to do so, and neither would it be reasonable for any Minister to ask the Chancellor for a blank cheque.

The Minister said that each school would produce its own arrangements. I accept that; the appraisal arrangements must be tailored to particular schools. However, it will mean that they will be vastly different unless regulations or guidelines on performance-related pay are introduced under subsections (5) and (6). If that happens, our schools will continue down the road on which this Government have been moving since 1997. The Government have done many decent things, but I would criticise them most for their mantra of valuing only what can be measured, rather than measuring what can be valued. That is a problem. Will such arrangements be introduced for the Department? Will all the civil servants be on performance-related pay? I suggest that the answer is no—the system only applies to teachers.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

The hon. Gentleman has made some important points. The current performance-related pay regime has created complexity for head teachers. He made the point about the financial arrangements, and the Government have not provided adequate long-term security for schools. Several head teachers in my constituency have expressed concerns about promising performance-related pay as they are uncertain whether they will be able to afford it in two or three years' time.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I thank the hon. Gentleman, because I was moving on to that point.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I will just finish my point.

I was going to ask the Minister whether the arrangements apply only to the management spine. There is a clear understanding that once a teacher goes through the threshold, he or she is then on a management pay spine with clear arrangements. Picking up the issue from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, we have had no commitment from the Government that, as a result of the schemes that are to be introduced, the funding of the pay spine above the threshold will be met in full. The Minister may say today that it will, but will performance-related pay be introduced for the main profession spine? Will teachers be unable to move up to the next point on the spine unless they meet the performance-related criteria? If that is the case, the Minister's comments today will be of tremendous interest to every teacher in England and Wales, because it will fundamentally

change their relationship with their schools. I am happy to give way to the Minister so that he can deal with this.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I will do so in a moment.

James Purnell (Labour, Stalybridge and Hyde)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even special advisers are on performance-related pay within the civil service? Unfortunately, some of us had bosses who did not rate our performance highly enough to give us those bonuses, but they were available. Also, they did not undermine our sense of performance within our teams.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

That is a most interesting intervention. The hon. Gentleman failed to perform as a special adviser so they gave him a job as an MP, which is remarkable. That is how the Labour party selects its candidates. We know that Lord Woodhead of Smith Square will probably be joining us in another place; perhaps he will now become a Member of Parliament.

I have made the points that I wanted to make. This is a serious issue, and I would understand if the Minister wanted to reply in writing to some of the points, because the teachers' associations will listen carefully to today's exchanges and draw their own conclusions.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

First, there is a direct link between appraisal and performance-related pay for all civil servants in the Department, and there has been for 20 years, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will be delighted to hear.

As the hon. Gentleman stated, the provision will apply to all teachers, not just the management spine. It is also clear that before the introduction of any regulations that changed the situation, there would have to be full consultation with all interested parties, including the teaching unions. It is disingenuous to present this as a sweeping or massive change in Government policy. The hon. Gentleman normally demonstrates integrity, but he wavers sometimes. He produces amendments that are nothing to do with the changes that he alleges the Government are planning for the teaching profession.

The amendments would separate performance-related pay and appraisal. The hon. Gentleman began his contribution by saying that he agreed with the principle of appraisal. He was absolutely clear about that. However, these amendments seek to remove the evidential base in making decisions about performance-related pay. I have not heard the hon. Gentleman say it during this debate—I may have missed it— but I do not think that he believes in performance-related pay. If he does not believe in performance-related pay for teachers or in any other setting, it would be more honest for him to say, ''I do not believe in performance-related pay, but I do believe in appraisal.'' That is really the core of the hon. Gentleman's contribution.

We believe that performance-related pay has a role to play in improving services. It is one lever that contributes towards supporting good teachers in an effort to raise standards in our schools.

This is nothing to do with the general points that the hon. Gentleman made in his contribution. Although I think that his points were legitimate, the amendments are designed purely to separate appraisal and performance-related pay. Other than in circumstances where a teacher consents to an appraisal being used, the two would be separate. That is completely illogical and would significantly undermine the whole purpose of the appraisal process.

There is a significant amount of discretion available to head teachers in terms of the judgments that they make about the performance of other teachers, and that is appropriate. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right when he said that there is a variety of ways in which an individual contributes to a school. That contribution involves being a team player, being a supportive member of staff and involves the impact they will have on their colleagues. The hon. Gentleman should be clearer about whether his party believes in the principle of performance-related pay and appraisal.

While there are some organisations that separate the two —I would not pretend that this is a unique or novel suggestion, as there are some organisations that make that judgment —we have a responsibility to ensure that the decisions made on performance are significantly based on evidence, and are in accordance with a framework that is clear about the standards that the process needs to have attached to it.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the very early days of performance-related pay and appraisal, and said what a joke it was. We are seeking to put in place a professional framework that is transparent and fair, and that considers hard evidence about a teacher's performance when it is linked to any decisions about pay. On that basis, I again ask the hon. Gentleman to remove his amendment.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

This has been an interesting debate, and I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman feels that I have been disingenuous, as that is genuinely not my style. I have tried to raise the issues. I said at the outset that these were probing amendments. I have listened to the Minister's comments and there is merit in some of his arguments.

It is interesting that two things have come out of this debate. First, we are now to have performance-related pay from the moment a person enters the teaching profession. That is what the Minister has said. This is a fundamental shift from anything that any Minister has said in the past. I thank the Minister for his honesty.

Secondly, we have had no guarantee that the commensurate resources will be provided so that schools can meet the scheme. Without that, performance-related pay is a joke. We cannot have one without the other.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

Not only that, we do not have any guarantee that the Government will continue to fund the current scheme. All that I have been able to extract

from the Government in a series of questions is that they are aware that it will have long-term cost implications and that they are looking into it.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The hon. Gentleman is right. I am sorry that I did not address that issue specifically. If he looks at Hansard from the last Parliament he will see that I asked the then Secretary of State a series of questions about the funding of the threshold. It was guaranteed for two years. After that we do not know. It will probably be in the standard spending assessment or the new arrangements. The hon. Member is absolutely right.

The Minister is wrong to say that one cannot have appraisal and separate arrangements for pay. Many organisations do. The horror scenario, if this is now Government policy, is that surgeons in my local hospital will be assessed for performance-related pay on the number of operations that they carry out or the number or deaths that occur on the operating table. We are talking about a profession, not about people who make a number of widgets every day. This is a professional activity that depends on a number of people. If the Minister had said that professional development should be at the heart of Government policy and that it should include professional competence and reward for that—that happens in a host of organisations—I could be with him. I cannot, however, support the narrow definition with another set of tick boxes. We will return to this. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 348, in page 78, line 38, after 'authorities', insert 'in England'.

No. 349, in page 78, line 39, after 'authorities', insert 'in England'.

No. 350, in page 78, line 40, after second 'bodies', insert 'in England'.

No. 351, in page 78, line 41, after 'teachers', insert 'in England'.

No. 352, in page 78, line 42, at end insert—

'( ) Before making regulations under this section the National Assembly for Wales shall consult such of the following as appear to it to be appropriate—

(a) associations of local education authorities in Wales,

(b) local education authorities in Wales,

(c) bodies representing the interests of governing bodies in Wales,

(d) bodies representing the interests of teachers in Wales, and

(e) the National Council for Education and Training for Wales.'.

No. 353, in page 79, line 7, leave out subsection (8).—[Mr. Touhig.]

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

Ashok Kumar (Labour, Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)

I shall try to be brief. We have had a long debate but I should like to tease out a couple of points on appraisal. The Minister mentioned professional and personal development. The Royal Society of Chemistry has told me that it is concerned about the time that will be allocated for teachers to

prepare for their professional and personal development. We need some assurances that support will be available, especially in science. Science is a rapidly changing subject. Science teachers need a lot of support and help and they need assurances from the Minister that that will not be overlooked and that there will be sufficient Government investment.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I am content to give my hon. Friend the assurances that he seeks. The Government firmly believe that continuing professional development is key to achieving higher levels of performance for teachers. CPD is crucial to developing the calibre of our teaching force as well as being a driving force for improving the whole school. I can give the Committee a number of examples where the Government have been proactive. The best practice research scholarships provide teachers with an opportunity to use grants of up to £2,500 to do sharply focused research into key areas of teaching and learning in the classroom; more than 1,000 teachers benefited from them last year. Our pilot scheme for professional bursaries offers teachers financial support for professional development of £500 in nine LEAs and £700 for the associated excellence in cities initiative. During the next two years, £30 million will be spent on extending the scheme.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) raised concerns about science teachers. I agree that the professional development and training of science teachers is important. They benefit from all the initiatives to which I just referred, and there are sabbaticals, bursaries and scholarships aimed at improving continuing professional development of teachers generally. We shall pay particular attention to science teachers as part of the key stage 3 strategy, which is designed to raise standards at secondary school level. We are confident that our strategies will address my hon. Friend's points, and we wish to underpin and underline our commitment to the importance of science education.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East for raising an important point about professional development. As part of its settlement, the Scottish Parliament gave every teacher in Scotland a statutory right to professional development. In this country, we have a series of pilots. I accept and support them; they are advantageous. However, until we have a system in which we put professional development for every member of staff at the heart of the improvement process, we will not make progress.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Order. I recall that this was supposed to be an intervention.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments. We introduced sabbatical schemes in September 2001 to provide opportunities to enhance teacher development and to deliver significant benefits

to schoolteachers. We are conscious that professional development must be tailored effectively and have introduced strategies to achieve that.

Clause 127 deals with appraisals. We are proud of our record on teacher professional development. The Government have put a lot into it by way of resources and commitment, but we wish to raise the expectations of heads and teachers for training and professional development even higher than we have. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I do not want the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to get too excited at this point but, in the light of some of the implications in his contribution, it is important to put on the record that the Government are not changing any arrangements in relation to the main pay scale.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 127, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 128 - Qualified teacher status

Clause 129 - Requirement to be qualified

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 502, in page 79, leave out lines 28 to 38.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 535, in page 79, line 28, at beginning insert—

''After consultation with the General Teaching Council.''.

No. 498, in page 79, line 38, at end add—

''(b)In this section ''specified work'' means such work as may be specified in regulations made under this section being work of such nature that it cannot reasonably be performed otherwise than by a person who has satisfied the requirements specified in regulations made under section 128.''.

Mr. Willis: This is a probing amendment in which we are trying to ascertain the Government's thinking about staff who are not qualified teachers. The Secretary of State and various Governments have confined their control of the teaching profession to that profession and its members. With this clause, the Secretary of State is seeking to extend her powers to support staff in schools. On several occasions, most recently in her north of England speech in Huddersfield on 4 January, she said that a range of adults, rather than just professional teachers, would perform in the classroom of the future with different degrees of professional competence. The Liberal Democrats support the idea of extra staff, who are not professional teachers and are not registered with the GTC, working in classrooms, laboratories and other parts of the school. Those colleagues provide schools with an enormously valuable resource and we place on record that we support the Government's plans to increase their numbers. The Liberal Democrats also made a pledge in the 2001 election that every primary school would have an additional support member of staff in each classroom as a minimum requirement. It is nice to see that, as ever, the Government are picking up Liberal Democrat policy and putting it into practice, as they find it difficult to think of practical solutions to many of the difficulties.

In lines 28 to 38 of the clause, the Secretary of State is saying, in effect, that the Government want all these new people but want to ensure that they do what the Government tell them. The clause gives the Secretary of State additional powers to set out in regulations what work can be carried out by support staff. I may have misunderstood—I sometimes do—and The Minister will tell me if that is the case.

Most head teachers, especially of small primary schools, negotiate with their support staff, as support staff often perform several functions. We are not just talking about the special educational needs support teacher or the classroom assistant. Support staff often perform a host of boxed and coxed roles to support the work of the school. I would hate to see a situation in which the Secretary of State prescribes the job description of everyone who works in a school. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the Committee that that is not the intention and that we will not go down that road.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Amendment No. 535 suggests that the General Teaching Council may be an appropriate body to consult when the regulations are drafted under this section. I do not intend to speak at length, but I invite the Minister's comments on where he sees the GTC's role in that regard.

Amendment No. 498 is more substantive, and also deals with some of the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. The amendment suggests that the term ''specified work'' should be defined as

''such work as may be specified in regulations made under this section being work of such nature that it cannot reasonably be performed otherwise than by a person who has satisfied the requirements specified in regulations made under section 128.''

The purpose again is to seek clarification from the Minister of how it is intended that those powers should be used. What work will be specified as being appropriate only to qualified teachers? Where will the line be drawn between qualified teachers and others who may perform an extremely valuable role in the classroom? The Liberal Democrat spokesman made that point.

In response to my invitation, the Minister undertook to make more detail available to us at this point, and we look forward to that. I hope that, in doing so, he will further clarify the provisional registration of teachers and particularly its application for these purposes to overseas-trained teachers. Many such teachers do excellent work in our classrooms, but it is important to know the Government's intention. Do they intend to register all overseas-trained teachers or only those who seek qualified teacher status? We have in mind the fact that last year the Department for Education and Skills removed the four-month maximum time that overseas-trained teachers could spend in one post and increased to four years the maximum time that they could spend as temporary teachers.

Existing teacher regulations specify arrangements for employment of qualified and unqualified teachers. These provisions give the Secretary of State additional powers to make regulations to set out work that should be carried out by support staff. I understand that those powers are in areas that are a matter for local determination under the National Joint Council for Local Government Services. Again, we need to know what the Secretary of State intends to do with the new powers and how that would differ from the existing situation. I do not intend to dwell on these points, but the Minister undertook to give us more detail and we look forward to it with interest.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The clause ensures that work in schools to deliver education is carried out by a range of staff with appropriate skills and qualifications. I particularly welcomed the support expressed by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for recent announcements in that respect by my right hon. Friend. We want to introduce greater flexibility for schools, but it is also important that basic requirements on teacher professionalism and supervision be maintained in the work carried out in schools. Providing for those requirements in regulations will be an important safeguard for schools, teachers and parents, and will ensure that appropriate standards are upheld.

The note that we circulated to all Committee members gives more information about how that will work. It says:

''Clause 129(1) enables the Secretary of State to provide by regulations that specified work may be carried out in a school only by a qualified teacher. The Secretary of State intends, subject to consultation, that the specified work should entail: Overall responsibility for monitoring and assessing the progress of a pupil or group of pupils in a curriculum subject''

''Carrying out any of the statutory professional duties of a teacher, as required.''

The Bill provides for qualified teachers to have the right qualification and to be paid as qualified teachers, and for schools to employ teachers and non-teaching staff. We shall consult widely representatives of all interested parties on the content of regulations. We will be careful to avoid placing difficult burdens on schools and their managers in meeting staffing needs.

Amendment No. 502 would remove a major purpose of the clause, which is to provide the scope to set the circumstances in which non-teaching staff may support teachers in their work. The whole Committee would recognise the need for greater clarity in that regard. A transformation has taken place in classrooms over the past 10 years in that there are many more support staff. I think that there are almost 100,000 teaching assistants—many more than when the arrangements were put in place—so clarity is needed, and the clause provides that.

Removing the provision would remove our opportunity to provide clarification. If it were removed, no doubt some braver schools would press forward with arrangements for the organisation of work that best suited their needs. They would have some doubts about the legality of what they were doing and perhaps some anxiety that they would be challenged, but while some would carry on, others certainly would not. They would simply build a hard demarcation between teachers' work and the work done by others. That neither makes sense nor is the best way forward for any school, and that is why it is important that we leave in subsection (2), which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations that make clear what is the specified work that may be carried out in a school by someone who is not a qualified teacher.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The Minister is being helpful, so would he also add more clarity to the issue of paying these people? Do the Government envisage national pay scales that would reflect those responsibilities?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

No, we do not. The arrangements, as the hon. Member knows, are locally negotiated and I would envisage those arrangements continuing. There will be, under what we are envisaging and under the announcements made by my right hon. Friend, an evolution of the work of classroom assistants and that will certainly be a factor in future negotiations, but we do not envisage a national arrangement such as that.

As hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said, amendment No. 498 is along similar lines. It would limit the scope of non-teaching staff to support teachers. It would turn the purpose of the clause on its head if regulations simply identified the work that only a qualified teacher could do without exception or satisfying any particular conditions. We would then be drawn into a strict demarcation of functions that would be frustrating for the innovation that we want and would restrict the best deployment of skills and experience in schools. By contrast, what we want to do in clause 129 (1) and (2) is to create flexibility for schools, protection for parents and children as to the qualifications of their teachers and protection for teachers in defining their key professional role.

Amendment No. 535 singles out the GTC as a body that needs to be consulted before regulations are made under clause 129 (2). I put it to the hon. Member that the Secretary of State would be open to challenge if she did not consult fully and appropriately on the draft secondary legislation. I can give the Committee the assurance that the GTC will be included. There would, of course, be a wide range of bodies that we would also consider appropriate consultees, and it would be not be appropriate either to specify one of them or to attempt to specify all of them on the face of the Bill. By contrast it does make sense that the decision is for the Secretary of State, given the clear obligations on her in making that decision about who is consulted.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the arrangements for registration. This clause does not have any impact on that. There are some amendments when we come to schedule 13—I seem to keep referring him to future parts of our debate—but there is some detail in that schedule and the clause dealing specifically with the General Teaching Council is clause 144. To answer specifically, however, this clause does not change any of those arrangements.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

We have had an interesting response. I am happy with the Minister's comments, but I think we will end up with some of problems that have existed over trying to amalgamate different blue-collar pay and conditions arrangements into the single status agreements. Appallingly, under the North Yorkshire Conservative council, many people working in schools have had to work extra hours to receive the same amount of pay. We should return on another occasion to consider the pay of those people.

In 2000, at the Bridlington north of England conference, I made a point about growing professionals in our communities. The policy is in line with that idea. I applaud the Government on that, but the policy must be flexible so that it does not become a straitjacket for schools or individuals. Often, many of our school assistants have few qualifications and little experience, but they become incredibly valuable assets. We must encourage those people with open arms. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 358, in page 79, line 28, leave out

''The Secretary of State may by regulations''

and insert ''Regulations may''.—[Mr. Timms.]

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I beg to move amendment No. 359, in page 79, line 38, leave out

''does not include an independent school''

and insert

''means—

(a) a school maintained by a local education authority, or

(b) a special school not so maintained.''

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 363, 366 and 376.

Mr. Timms: Amendment No. 359 ensures that only LEA-maintained and non-maintained special schools are covered by the regulations that may be made under clause 129. That is a technical change. The other amendments are more technical still. I commend them to the Committee.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The Minister said that amendment No. 359 is technical. It deletes from the original text the phrase

''does not include an independent school''

and defines ''a school'' as meaning a school maintained by an LEA or a special school. May I push the Minister a little further on the difference between the two wordings?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I am happy to provide that clarification. Perhaps I should have explained it a little more fully. It was always our intention that only LEA-maintained and non-maintained special schools should be covered by the regulations. The definition of ''independent school'' given in section 463 of the Education Act 1996, which will be amended slightly by clause 168, does not include, for example, private nursery schools with pupils below compulsory school age. Independent schools will also not be covered by the regulations made under the clause. Excluding independent schools from the clause would not be sufficient.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 129, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 130 - Requirement to be registered

Clause 131 - Head teachers

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 540, in page 80, line 18, leave out subsection (1).

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 541, in page 80, line 20, leave out subsection (2).

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The amendments deal with the situation of head teachers and the Secretary of State's powers to make provision by regulation that a person may serve as a head teacher only if he is a qualified teacher or has a specified qualification. The amendments are probing. The purpose of amendment No. 540 is to establish whether the Government intend to apply the requirement in all circumstances, and amendment No. 541 is designed to probe the Minister for further information about what specified qualifications are anticipated.

It would be wrong of me to suggest that, had there been a requirement for all head teachers to be qualified teachers, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough may not have had to make his earlier shamefaced confession that he was not quite as good as he should have been. I am sure that that was not true and that he did an excellent job.

We want to draw out the Minister's thinking on the application of regulations and what they may contain.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Requiring head teachers to be qualified teachers is a logical extension of the thinking that we have explored in Committee and our commitment to raising standards in schools by ensuring that those who lead our schools have the skills and professional knowledge to do so successfully. At the moment, legislation indirectly requires head teachers to be qualified, but we want to make that more explicit.

It has been our objective for some time to make the national professional qualification for head teachers mandatory for all new head teachers, and clause 131 gives us the power to put that into effect. That will probably be widely welcomed in the Committee. We all know that the leadership, management ability and vision of the head are crucial factors in the overall effectiveness of a school. The new strengthened national professional qualification for head teachers has been widely welcomed by the profession. It has achieved a step change in recruitment. More than 10,000 people have applied since 1997, and almost 5,000 now hold the qualification. When recruiting for a head teacher, governing bodies can be assured that candidates who hold it will have had a thorough preparation for headship.

The requirement to hold the qualification will apply only to those seeking their first headship post. It will not apply to existing head teachers. I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman some helpful, further information.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the Minister, and with those assurances and that further information, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 364, in page 80, line 18, leave out

'The Secretary of State may by regulations'

and insert 'Regulations may'.

No. 365, in page 80, line 20, leave out

'The Secretary of State may by regulations'

and insert 'Regulations may'.

No. 366, in page 80, line 30, leave out

'does not include an independent school'

and insert

'means—

(a) a school maintained by a local education authority, or

(b) a special school not so maintained.'.—[Mr. Timms.]

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

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The point that I am about to make will not surprise hon. Members. The clause appears to be a further extension of the control mechanism that the Government want to impose on many aspects of education. The Bill is meant to be deregulatory, but the Government have reverted to type and the controls that they want to impose on schools pop up in unexpected places.

Why have the Government so little confidence in all the other mechanisms that they have in place? They have mechanisms to deal with failing schools, improve the quality of governing bodies and encourage training of heads and other teachers. However, they do not have the confidence in the devolved arrangements, which they introduced, to enable the people who are responsible for implementing the arrangements to take appropriate action in choosing someone admittedly as important as a head teacher.

We can always envisage circumstances in which it may be appropriate for a school to consider a candidate who is not so qualified. I can give two examples, one of which admittedly does not refer to a maintained school. In the immediate post-war years, the governing body of the school at which I was educated chose not to appoint a qualified head teacher, or indeed a qualified teacher, as headmaster because there were important requirements for reorganising the school and getting it back on to a sound economic footing. Other governing bodies in other parts of the country, even in the maintained sector, have done the same, and the name of Queenswood school in Hertfordshire rings a bell. Other maintained schools have recently chosen not to appoint qualified teachers to the position of head for excellent reasons.

I have one other point, for which I should perhaps have intervened on the Minister earlier. I think that he said the regulations will apply only to those applying for their first headship, but I suspect that he meant those applying for their first or subsequent headship. Is he saying that someone who already has a headship will not be required to gain the qualification, even when he is applying for a further headship?

Mr. Timms indicated assent.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

In that case, I thank the Minister.

I revert to my main point of concern about the clause. Like some subsequent clauses, it erects too high a hurdle in the way of governors who are appointing head teachers. It unnecessarily constrains their freedom of action, and shows that the Government do not trust the people they are setting in place. The

terrible thing is that however many qualifications someone may have, he or she can turn out to be absolutely useless. I will not go into my own qualifications, but one could turn out to be useless at the job for which one has qualifications. They are not a guarantee of competence, and their absence is in no way an indication of incompetence. We have many procedures in place for dealing with those who turn out to be incompetent.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

We are determined to raise standards in our schools, and insisting on qualifications is part of that. One can always think of exceptions, but there is no doubt that the experience and training that will be required in order to obtain the headship qualification are valuable development processes that indicate that candidates have acquired skills and undergone training that will help to equip them for the task. Making that requirement compulsory will mean that schools will be choosing from a field of qualified rather than unqualified teachers.

I do not think that that is unreasonable. If one were appointing a commissioner of Metropolitan police, one would expect that person to have been a policeman. I do not think that is an unreasonable requirement. It may limit the field, but given the importance of the role of head teachers, and the impact it has on so many children, I think that expecting head teachers to be qualified teachers is a good step.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Is putting Mr. Birt in charge of the railways another example of that?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the context. We will consult on the regulations. An experienced teacher in further education may not have QTS, but may be an appropriate person to be appointed as a head teacher. Regulations will be produced, and we will consult on the matter.

I hope that members from both sides of the Committee will recognise that these are good steps to take. I would emphasis in particular the enthusiasm that I have come across for the national professional qualification for head teachers, which I think is a very big step forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 131, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 132 - provision of education

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 542, in page 80, line 39, at end add

'although nothing in the above shall prevent a person who may otherwise be prohibited from providing education under the supervision of a person who is not prohibited.'.

Amendment No. 542 explores the circumstances in which Ministers may deem it appropriate not to prohibit people who come into the various categories under clause 132. It particularly raises the possibility that a person who is prohibited because they have not yet completed a probationary period or because they have not yet attained the specified qualification may none the less be permitted to teach--to exercise an educational function-if supervised by someone who has attained that qualification or that status.

This is a probing amendment to get from the Minister a little information as to whether it is in the Government's thinking that prohibition may not always be rigid under those circumstances.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks. The current regulations already allow for and encourage unqualified staff to enter teaching through FE. They allow a new entrant between two and four years to gain a recognised qualification. Teachers employed in FE on 31 August 2001 are not required to gain a qualification. New people are being given time to obtain the relevant qualification, and people who have been teaching in FE without qualifications are not required to gain those qualifications if they were in post on 31 August 2001.

The existing regulations, which we imagine will continue, already exempt temporary or occasional visiting lecturers who are practitioners and who offer colleges updates on industrial, commercial or professional practices. The regulations do not and will not in the future apply to support staff. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, we should encourage support staff to obtain qualifications, but they are not required have any.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that, although we have a commitment and determination to drive up standards and have a far higher proportion of qualified FE staff, his concern about rigidity is not well founded.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 132, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 133 - Principals of further education institutions

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 543, in page 81, line 2, leave out subsection (1).

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 544, in page 81, line 17, at end add—

''(5) Notwithstanding the foregoing a person may serve as principal of a further education institution if—

(a) another member of the staff of the institution has a specified qualification; or

(b) the corporation of the institution has agreed to his appointment for a special purpose which in its opinion renders the qualification otiose.''.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The amendments would allow a principal to serve who perhaps does not have the required qualifications, on condition that there is a qualified person on the staff who could act as a deputy or surrogate in some circumstances. Again, it is a question of whether flexibility exists within the proposed regulations.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I should like to add to my hon. Friend's comments, because the absence of amendment No. 544 would represent a failure of nerve on the Government's part over the institutions and processes that they have set in place, such as the Learning and Skills Council and the inspections of further education colleges. We now have particularly well-qualified people serving on the corporations of further education institutions, and I wonder why the Government so lacks confidence in them.

The problems facing an institution may not require a person with the range of qualifications that the Secretary of State has specified: it is more likely that a limited number of such qualifications will be sufficient. It seems sensible to allow the corporation of the institution to take a decision in a special case.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

In a sense, we are recycling our earlier debate. It is a legitimate debate. We encourage and support the concept of leaders of FE colleges, which are massively important and historically undervalued institutions, and qualifications are an important part of developing the qualities and standards that we seek to achieve.

On amendment No. 544, I find it a curious concept that one could employ a principal who did not have the relevant professional qualifications because someone else on the staff did. That would put the principal in an invidious position, because it would become public knowledge that the only reason he or she had been able to take up the post as leader of the institution was because someone more junior in the organisation had the relevant qualifications. That would present serious complications to do with authority and credibility, and with the management of the institution. It would be a most curious arrangement. It would be known that the person has been appointed as leader only because the assistant manager had the qualifications.

The amendment could seriously undermine sensible management arrangements and the capacity to deliver leadership at an institution. It might also lead the staff to question who exactly was in charge. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The Minister has misunderstood the thrust of the amendment. Certainly it is important to take account of the fact that different aspects of the various roles undertaken by the principal of a further education institution may be prized differently. Some may relate to leadership while others may relate to educational qualifications or some other management experience. It has been a useful exchange. I would not want the Minister to think that in all circumstances the

lack of a particular qualification may undermine the leadership position or the management role of a person in that position. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 368, in page 81, line 2, leave out

'The Secretary of State may by regulations'

and insert 'Regulations may'.—[Mr. Timms.]

Clause 133, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 134 - Training in provision of further education

Clause 135 - Wales: provision in higher education

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I beg to move amendment No. 374, in page 81, leave out line 44.

As no institutions maintained by local authorities in Wales offer higher education courses, the amendment removes an unnecessary provision and I commend it to the Committee.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

What will happen if local authorities want to offer such course in the future?

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I suggest that we cross that bridge when we come to it.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

With respect, that will not be possible, as the bridge will have been burnt.

Mr. Touhig: I can only say that there are no institutions that offer these courses at the present time. The clause includes powers on these matters that were given to the Assembly. This is an unnecessary provision at present.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 135, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 136 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 137 - Health and fitness

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I beg to move amendment No. 530, in page 82, line 22, leave out

'The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that'.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this we may take the following amendments: No. 531, in page 82, line 23, leave out 'specified conditions' and insert

'the responsible body of an educational institution.'.

No. 532, in page 82, line 25, leave out subsections (2), (3) and (4) and insert—

'(2) In this section—

(a) ''an activity'' means an activity which requires physical skills or attributes not generally possessed by teachers;

(b) ''the responsible body of an educational institution'' means the governing body of a school, the corporation of a further education institution, or the principal of a nursery school, pupil referral unit, or other education provides.'.

No. 518, in page 82, line 32, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 519, in page 82, line 37, at end insert

'for a local education authority or a governing body of a school or a further education institution.'

No. 520, in page 82, line 39, leave out paragraph (b).

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

These are tidying up amendments. The clause goes on at length about regulations concerning health and fitness. Amendment No. 530 would make subsection (1) read simply:

''An activity to which this section applies . . .'',

It would delete the preamble that the

''Secretary of State may by regulations provide''

The Secretary of State is being given more and more powers to vary matters after the Bill has become an Act. Surely it is better for the Bill to be definite and substantial now, without the need to make regulations in future. Similarly, amendment No. 531 tidies up the relevant part of the clause.

Amendment No. 532 would make it clear that the activity referred to is

''an activity which requires physical skills or attributes not generally possessed by teachers''.

That is what the Bill means, but it is difficult to work that out from the current drafting of clause 137. The amendment would make the Bill say what it means.

It would be interesting to find out why Government amendments Nos. 375 and 376 were debated under clause 127. There must be some good reason why you decided, Mr. Griffiths, that amendment No. 375 should be debated in conjunction with other

amendments to clause 127. The Minister's proposed amendment, which deletes the same words and inserts ''regulations may'', was basically the same. I do not oppose amendment No. 375 because it is similar to our amendment No. 530. If there is a good reason why the Minister is not speaking to it now as opposed to 10 clauses ago, I would like to hear it.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I rise to speak to amendments Nos. 518 to 520, which relate to the same issue. Subsection (2) allows fitness requirements to be imposed on anyone providing education in a school regardless of whether they are employed and, if so, by whom. The coverage of education providers other than at schools or of those who do not provide education but have contact with children is, however, limited to those employed by LEAs in governing bodies. A business person coming into the school will not be covered. Frankly, I do not understand the distinction. Can the Minister bring some consistency to this aspect of the Bill?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I was asked why we discussed the Government amendment when we did. We did so because that is where the amendment appeared on the amendment paper. Why it appeared on the amendment paper where it did is for someone else to answer.

I shall respond to the hon. Lady's points on amendments Nos. 530 and 531. In practice, the employer takes the decision on whether employees are sufficiently healthy to carry out their duties in accordance with the regulations. Under the clause, the Secretary of State can maintain or reproduce existing regulations that establish a framework and specify certain conditions. We will continue to apply the current regulations under the new legislation. They prevent employers from appointing anyone who is in receipt of a teachers' ill health retirement pension, which may demonstrate that the prospective employee has been declared permanently incapacitated for such employment. I hope that the continuity will reassure the hon. Lady.

On amendment No. 532, it would not be appropriate to restrict the definition of activities to those requiring special physical skills. We are considering ordinary health and fitness. Teaching, and other jobs that involve responsibility for school children, require the health and well-being necessary for the specific duties that the job entails. For example, ill health might impair a person's judgment or reduce alertness in the supervision of pupils.

On the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, the clause is wide-ranging. It covers people providing education in schools, further education, or outside schools. They may be employed on a contract of employment or for services with LEAs, school governing bodies or FE institutions. The clause takes account of the potential for greater flexibility and it will apply the provisions to those providing education whatever their employment circumstances. The hon. Gentleman's amendments would impose requirements that would apply beyond

the Secretary of State's ability to control, monitor and enforce them. They would extend the requirements to privately employed tutors, over whom the Secretary of State would not have the ability to enforce the provisions. That is the reason for the constraints that he has highlighted. The Secretary of State can impose the current requirements, and expect LEAs and institutions to play a part in ensuring compliance with them. On the basis of those clarifications, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment.

Eleanor Laing (Conservative, Epping Forest)

I am grateful to the Minister for his concise explanation of the clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 375, in page 82, line 22, leave out

''The Secretary of State may by regulations''

and insert ''Regulations may''.

No. 376, in page 83, line 1, leave out

''does not include an independent school''

and insert

''means—

(a) a school maintained by a local education authority, or

(b) a special school not so maintained.''—[Mr. Timms.]

Clause 137, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 138 - Prohibition from teaching, &c. Amendment made: No. 377, in page 83, line 4, after ''State'', insert:

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 524, in page 83, line 4, after ''person'', insert ''or category of person''.

The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to specify that a whole category of persons is prohibited from teaching. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments. Clause 138(4)(b) refers to a direction

''on the grounds that the person is unsuitable to work with children''.

Clearly, there may be many different reasons why that is the case, but it is possible to envisage certain categories of individual who, because of their criminal background or mental health, may never be safe with children. I am thinking particularly of paedophiles who have committed serious sexual offences against children.

Where there is a genuine concern, there may be some logic in permitting the Secretary of State to specify a broader measure relating to a whole category of individuals or offenders. That may not only avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and delay in the process, but help to provide a safe environment for children. This is a probing amendment and, as I said, I look forward to hearing the Minister's remarks.

Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting and valid point. I hope that I can persuade him that the clause already allows for the arrangement that he envisages. It does not prevent my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from having a policy of making directions automatically in respect of persons who fall into a particular category. The provision allows the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the procedure for giving a direction, and those regulations will provide for her to make a direction automatically in any case in which prescribed conditions are met. The hon. Gentleman's important point is therefore covered.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the Minister for satisfying my concerns. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 378, in page 83, line 24, leave out

'The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section'

and insert

'A direction under this section may be given'.

No. 379, in page 83, line 37, after 'State', insert

', in relation to England, or the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales concurrently, in relation to Wales,'.—[Mr. Timms.]

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I beg to move amendment No. 380, in page 83, line 39, leave out 'to whom directions relate' and insert

'who are subject to directions'.

The amendment makes a wholly technical change, bringing the wording of clause 138(6) more in line with the way in which the rest of the clause is expressed. I commend it to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 138, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 139 - Directions under section 138: appeal

Clause 140 - specification of qualification or course

Schedule 13 - The general teaching councils for england and wales

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 503, in page 164, leave out lines 23 to 26.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 504, in page 164, leave out lines 28 to 29.

No. 505, in page 164, line 30, leave out 'provisional registration or full'.

No. 506, in page 164, line 31, leave out 'at the relevant time'.

No. 507, in page 164, line 31, leave out 'or were'.

No. 508, in page 164, leave out lines 33 to 40.

No. 509, in page 165, leave out line 3.

No. 510, in page 165, leave out lines 20 to 22.

No. 511, in page 166, leave out lines 10 to 12.

No. 512, in page 166, leave out lines 16 to 18.

No. 513, in page 167, leave out lines 16 to 19.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

This string of amendments may be the last business of the day, but it is important. When the GTC was set up under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, it was envisaged that it would quickly become the master of its own destiny. The amendments challenge the Government's assumption that they can add new categories to registration by the GTC, two of which the Government hinted that they would like to have. One of those categories is trainee teachers and the other is teachers from overseas.

The GTC is either an organisation for teachers who have the necessary qualifications to be registered, or it is not. If categories are going to be added to it, it will lose its power to act on behalf of the teaching profession. The adding of categories diminishes the GTC's authority and brings into question the fees that trainee teachers or teachers from overseas will pay. I respectfully suggest that only those who are fully registered should be members of the GTC. The Government may feel that there are powerful reasons to have additional categories, such as trainee teachers

and teachers from overseas. In that case, the Minister will make a case for them. I strongly argue that now that the GTC is up and running, it should be the master of its own destiny. If it is making a case for additional categories on behalf of the teaching profession, let the Minister make that case. I do not believe that the GTC has made that case. This is coming from the Government. I hope that the Government will not press ahead with granting new categories for registration with the GTC.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.