Education Bill

Public Bill Committee, 24 January 2002.

Standing Committee G

Education Bill

Clause 172 - Training and education provided in the workplace for 14 to 16 year olds

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 555, in page 99, line 37, at end insert:

'(2A) In section 6 (financial resources: conditions)—

after subsection (6) there is inserted

''(7) Regulations may be made under this section making provision requiring any person to whom resources are provided under section 5(1)(ea) to satisfy conditions relating to any matter referred to in subsections (3), (4) or (5) of this section or to any other matter as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate.''.'

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike. This is the last morning sitting and, perhaps with a bit of luck, the last sitting of the Committee.

These two amendments are important.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. We are debating only amendment No. 555.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I was trying to move swiftly, but I bow to your chairmanship as ever, Mr. Pike.

Amendment No. 555 deals, importantly, with financial resources for 14 to 16-year-olds who may be in the workplace for part of their education and training. The Liberal Democrats support the principle of the clause, which fits in with our thinking in relation to the 14-to-19 continuum. We must look for other routes for young people, and the Government are right to ensure that employers become part of the solution. We have often regarded education as separate from employment, and never the twain shall meet. One of the saddest features of curriculum provision since the Education Reform Act 1987 is that the curriculum has been seen as ''one size fits all''. Although there have been attempts to move away from that, that is generally how schools view the curriculum, and it has been difficult to get young people into the workplace.

However, hon. Members will know that there is work experience and work experience, and employers and employers, as I am sure that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) found. If the scheme is to work, we must ensure that there is quality. We must ensure that it is not just a method of getting young people out of school and putting them somewhere else because they were difficult to manage in the school setting, as sadly it so often used to be. The amendment would ensure that the provision was properly resourced and of sufficient quality.

The Modern Apprenticeship Advisory Committee was set up by the Secretary of State and chaired by Sir John Cassels to prepare advice for the Government on this issue. The conclusions of its ''Way to Work'' report made depressing reading. The evidence made it clear that young people do not choose the vocational route as they do not see it as option, and parents do not see it as worth while. Part of the problem is that our education system is hierarchical. Certain levels of academia are seen as more important than others. Sadly, many careers advisers also share that view. Worse still, so do employers. Sir John Cassels made it clear in his report that there was a problem.

Completion rates for people who take the NVQ level 1 route rather than the GSCE route are also poor. Only 41 per cent. of young people complete NVQ at foundation level and only 49 per cent.—less than half—at advanced level. There is a challenge for, not only the Government, but all of us interested in making this area work. It is interesting to make comparisons with Germany, where two thirds of young people aged 14 to 19 become involved in vocational training with great success. In Denmark about one in three young people are in vocational training. Ninety per cent. complete the courses and gain worthwhile qualifications. We must ask what we are not doing right.

The 1998 inspections highlighted the problems affecting the sector: weak initial assessment of provision; poor induction of young people on to the courses; and poor tackling of key skills, which was a bit hit and miss. Where provision was properly inspected and there was a proper regime pointing out to colleges and employers how the courses could be improved, 90 per cent. of all provision improved radically. It is not beyond us to achieve a good solution. That is the principle of the amendment. I hope that the Minister can accept it. If he cannot accept it in its current form, I hope that he will ensure that an amendment to deal with the problem is tabled on Report.

I should like to ask the Minister four questions. First, if students transfer to a further education college at 14-plus, as is envisaged through the legislation, and then go on an employment related NVQ-type course, does the further education college look after that provision for them or does it remain with the host institution; the school?

The second question is about costs, which is an important issue. I suspect that in parts of the country it will be particularly pertinent. Who is going to pick up the costs? Will it be the Learning and Skills Council—in which case, will it be additionality—or will it be like post-16 funding where it is taken away from local education authority budgets and then transferred back? If this is to be another slice out of LEA budgets, it is important for us to know now so that we do not have the debacle currently occurring in school sixth-form funding, where there is huge under-provision in many areas, and over-provision in others. Some areas and schools have done better out of the new arrangements than others, depending on how LEAs funded the provision previously.

When we were debating the Learning and Skills Bill, the Government made a commitment—of this I am sure—that there would be no incursion by the Learning and Skills Council into the compulsory school age sector. There was a clear guarantee of a demarcation between the work of the Learning and Skills Council post-16, or post-compulsory, and that of local education authorities and schools before that. Now, however, we are talking about a change in that policy. To be fair, the change is in the Bill; it has not been hidden. My party and I are fairly relaxed about the change, but it opens the door for the LSC to take over the whole 14-to-19 funding regime.

My third question is whether that is the Government's intention. Are they saying that, with the 14-to-19 reforms, it would be logical to place all post-14 provision in the hands of the LSC, avoiding the to-ing and fro-ing that has taken place, particularly between school sixth forms and the LSC? I understand that logicality.

Fourthly, I appreciate that we are talking about young people in their last year of compulsory schooling, including in Wales. We do not want to exclude the Welsh from these wonderful provisions—although I have forgotten all about Cardiff since the team lost its next game. Will employers be able to draw down, say, the current LSC funding of post-16 students, which is £2,600, to support work-based training? If not, how will they be paid and by whom?

I generally support what the Government are doing, but some issues need to be addressed. I hope that quality and funding will be at the heart of these measures, rather than an added extra.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I welcome you to the Chair of the final morning sitting, Mr. Pike.

I welcome the support expressed by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) for the changes that the Government are making, particularly the prospect of opening up work-based learning for young people from the age of 14. That will be a way to enthuse some young people and engage them in learning. Currently, far too many people switch off from learning much too early.

I agree that there is a big challenge and much to do, but I do not agree that the report by Sir John Cassels is depressing. It identifies the challenge to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention, but it also presents an optimistic vision of how things could be in future. The report was well received, achieving a high level of consensus on its proposed way forward. It is now within our reach to effect fundamental changes that benefit many young people.

On the amendment, I hope that I can persuade the hon. Gentleman that we already have all the levers that we need to ensure that the Learning and Skills Council acts in accordance with our policy priorities. In particular, the annual grant letter goes to the LSC, and other guidance is provided from time to time. Under the Learning and Skills Act 2000, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can back that up if

necessary with directions to the LSC on achieving objectives.

It is important to ensure that there is good-quality workplace provision, but that concern does not arise only in connection with that aspect of the LSC's activity; it applies to the LSC's activities across the board. The way in which the LSC is set up under the 2000 Act gives the Secretary of State the necessary levers to assure that quality in all parts of its activity. It would be slightly odd to introduce the regulation-making power for that element of the LSC budget, which will always be a relatively small part of the overall budget.

The hon. Gentleman asked several questions. First, who would have overall responsibility for a child—I presume that he means a child at school—going into work-based learning. The answer is the school. There is no requirement to interpose an FE college between the school and the workplace. We envisage direct collaboration between schools and workplaces with the school retaining overall responsibility for what happens to the child. The cost of the provision could be met from the LSC budget or the school might contribute to it from the school budget, depending on the local arrangement. We do not propose a transfer of resources of the kind that we have seen with sixth forms, but we are considering the funding of mixed programmes. The issue will be looked at in the Green Paper, which as the hon. Gentleman knows, will be published before long.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about our intentions on the funding of 14-to-16 learning and whether we envisage the prospect of an LSC takeover in that area. I can give him the clear assurance that we have no intention of removing from LEAs the clear lead responsibility for funding 14-to-16 learning for the great majority of young people. Most 14 to 16-year-olds will continue to spend most of their time in schools funded by LEAs. We do not envisage the wholesale transfer about which the hon. Gentleman was asking. His final question was whether employers could draw down the sum of money to which he referred. The answer is that they could well do so, but I envisage a variety of local arrangements and funding sources being drawn down. There should be no barrier against the sort of drawing down to which he referred.

I hope that I have been able to persuade the hon. Gentleman that the amendment is unnecessary. I agree with him about the importance of ensuring quality in future provision for 14 to 16-year-olds; the levers that we need to provide that reassurance are already in place. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will therefore withdraw the amendment.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am grateful to the Minister for addressing those issues. It has been a useful debate and has highlighted what is likely to be an extremely bureaucratic process. The Learning and Skills Council will possibly, although not necessarily, pay the employer and provide some funds to the school. The LEA will keep the prime responsibility, as will the school. The school will then have to pay the employer, or possibly not. Clarification is needed and I hope that

the Minister will reflect on that and perhaps give us written assurance on those points.

I failed to raise one issue and I should be grateful if the Minister could respond. One of the great problems of implementing the scheme in rural areas is that there are often no employers or significantly fewer employers than in large urban areas. Increasingly, the cost of travel to placements becomes a major issue. Would the Minister give an assurance that the travel costs for students attending work placements under the scheme will be met by the LSC and not fall on to schools' budgets?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I will answer the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I do not want to sit down before the Minister can respond. Subject to his response, I will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Let me just respond to both the hon. Gentleman's points. I do not agree that this needs to be a bureaucratic arrangement. It should be possible for local arrangements to be made and for the most appropriate arrangement to be put in place, rather than heavy-handed, central prescription about how all this can work. It does not need to be bureaucratic and I hope that it will not be.

I recognise the importance of travel costs. The Government certainly do not intend to introduce a scheme that imposes unreasonable costs on those taking part in workplace learning. We need to address that when we spell out more fully how the arrangements will work.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

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. 556, in page 100, line 5, after '1996', insert—

'(11) The powers of the Secretary of State and the Chief Inspector under this section shall not be exercisable with the consequence that a school at which pupils of compulsory school age are registered shall be subject to inspection as part of an area inspection and to inspection under section 10 of the School Inspections Act 1996 at intervals of eighteen months or less.'.

This is another important amendment and I hope that the Minister's response will provide some clarification. We all accept the need for effective inspection. It makes an important contribution to raising the quality in schools, colleges and work placements. The amendment attempts to ensure that schools, colleges and work placements are not over inspected. The Bill introduces for the first time into the 14-to-16 sector the ability of the adult learning inspectorate to inspect parts of compulsory schooling. It also enables area inspection, as introduced by the Learning and Skills Act 2000, to come into play. Ofsted inspections take place once every four years—six, if it is a light touch inspection—or more often for a school in special measures. Under the current regulations, Ofsted accept that after section 10 inspections, primary schools should be exempt from a second inspection for a minimum of nine months. That is written into the organisational framework. Why is that not extended to the secondary sector?

The amendment would prevent the over-inspection of schools. One of the problems of area inspections, by definition, is that they inspect a particular type of course in several institutions simultaneously to establish parity of quality and other arrangements. That is right and reasonable. However, in practice, particular institutions—such as further education institutions—that offer a plethora of different courses could undergo an area inspection, in which Ofsted and the adult learning inspectorate carry out inspections on different courses every day of the week, 365 days a year.

The amendment would avoid the same situation arising in schools. If the Bill is successful, and I hope that it is, we may find in certain schools that many key stage 4 pupils are involved in such an approach to their education, training and learning. They might be involved in different schemes, from motor vehicle mechanics to engineering, or from transport to tourism, all of which could be subject to area inspections. The amendment would ensure that Ofsted, area or ALI inspections do not take place unless an 18-month interval separates them. If that interval is not observed, the life of the school is disrupted.

We are not opposed to the proposals, but when an area inspection examines an engineering course, part of which might be offered in a workplace, it cannot inspect that part of the course without considering other systems in the school. That creates a burden on the whole school, because it has to meet the inspection's requirements. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I trust that the Minister will support its tenor, if not its wording.

A concern arose during the individual learning accounts debacle. I do not want to cause any embarrassment, but it was good to see the Department admit that it was of its own making. [Interruption.] Such an admission is not embarrassing: it is good for the soul. Before work-based training is accepted, we must ensure that the placement is right, rather than inspecting it after the training has started and finding faults. Will the Minister assure the Committee that sufficient powers will exist to ensure that the placements are inspected before young people begin them?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The aim of Ofsted—an aim shared by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough—is to prevent over burdening schools with inspections. Mike Tomlinson, the chief inspector, has done a good deal to reduce the burdens associated with inspection, and is looking for ways of taking it further. In 2001, Ofsted carried out a review of those burdens with my Department's standards and effectiveness unit. I believe that the nine-month period for primary schools was one of the results of that review.

Mike Tomlinson recommended that, after a section 10 inspection, schools should be guaranteed a period during which there would be no other inspection visits.

The period for secondary schools is 12 weeks. That is shorter than the time for primary schools because

Ofsted needs to carry out thematic inspections. Since there are fewer secondary schools than primary schools, if it is carrying out a thematic inspection, it is not possible to offer the same length of time as for primary schools. However, the aspiration is one that Ofsted shares, and it will be doing what it can to avoid any difficulties.

The chief inspector fully recognises that the extension of the scope of area inspections to include provision from age 14 must not result in a significant increase in the overall inspection burden on secondary schools. Schools will be visited during area inspections only where it is necessary to enable inspectors to obtain the evidence that they need, and that would not otherwise be available to them. Those visits will be as brief as possible, and certainly much shorter than the full section 10 inspection.

During consultations last autumn on the future arrangements for school inspections, Ofsted suggested that section 10 inspections of secondary schools in an area might be linked to provide evidence to feed into subsequent area inspections, avoiding a second visit to those schools. That is an idea that Ofsted will be exploring further in the coming months.

The problem with the amendment is that it would constrain the ability of inspectors to do their job effectively. In some instances there might be very good reasons why an 18-month interval between a section 10 inspection and an area inspection would be undesirable. It would not, for example, be right for inspectors to have to delay an inspection of a school that was causing concern simply because there had been a recent area inspection, which may have looked only briefly at the school in question.

The aspiration is one that the chief inspector and I share. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the arrangements for area inspections, as with school inspections more generally, will take account of the need to keep the burdens on those being inspected to a minimum. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the firm 18-month gap suggested by the amendment is too inflexible, given some of the circumstances that would undoubtedly arise from time to time.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am grateful to the Minister for responding so comprehensively to this amendment. I am also grateful to him for recognising that there is a genuine issue about over inspection. I support his view that the last chief inspector—who, having recommended that LEAs should be privatised, is now going to Hackney to head up a privatised LEA—has done a great deal to move towards a much more sensible arrangement for inspections. With those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

Clause 172 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 173 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 174 - Inspection of LEAs: rights of entry etc

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I wish to ask a few questions about subsection (2) of the proposed new section 40 of the Education Act 1997. The notes on clauses refer to the need to allow access to the premises of the local education authority for inspection. Is there a distinction in law between the premises of the LEA and premises of the local authority? As we know, certain functions of many LEAs are undertaken by different parts of the parent local authority; for example, personnel functions, which relate directly to the provision of the education service. Does the clause include rights of access to those premises and records?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Let me take this opportunity to correct an impression given by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough a moment ago about the movements of the chief inspector, Mike Tomlinson. Under a mechanism that we agreed and developed with Hackney council, he will take up the position of chair of the new trust that is to be set up in Hackney. He is not moving into the private sector, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The Minister is always helpful.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Clause 174 amends the rights of entry for inspectors and for anyone assisting them. At present, inspectors have rights of entry only to the premises of the local education authority and the schools that it maintains, but the scope of inspections extends to educational provision beyond such premises. The need for clause 174 is clear.

Among the LEA functions that are scrutinised in inspections are arrangements for education away from school for children who, for a variety of reasons, would not otherwise receive suitable education. The clause extends the right of entry to any premises, other than private houses, on which such education is provided under arrangements made by the LEA. Some of our most troubled and vulnerable children receive education other than at school under arrangements of an obvious nature, and it is right that inspectors should be able to inspect such premises to ensure that LEAs are making appropriate arrangements for the education of those children. The clause brings inspectors' rights of entry for LEA inspections fully into line with those for other inspections.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the distinction in law between the premises of the LEA and the premises of the local authority. There is no such distinction. The two are the same body, and it is not possible to make a distinction between their premises. The clause covers both, so I am able to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thank the Minister for that reassurance. Would he take it one step further and consider a local education authority that had privatised the management of its payroll system through an organisation such as Capita? Would the

inspector have the right of access to Capita's premises, which are certainly not covered by proposed new section 40(2), but may be covered elsewhere in the Bill?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to subsection (3), which provides:

''The inspector . . . shall also have at all reasonable times a right to inspect and take copies of . . . any records kept by, and any other documents containing information relating to, the local education authority or any school maintained by the authority''.

The ability to examine the record, which would be required in the circumstances that he envisaged, is covered by that wording. It will cover every need of which I can think, and I hope that he will be reassured by that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 174 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 175 - Allowances in respect of education or training

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 536, in page 104, line 10, after 'allowance', insert

'(this determination may relate to the personal circumstances of the person but not to the locality where that person resides).'.

I add my welcome to you, Mr. Pike.

The amendment would provide that when allowances are paid to individuals in respect of education or training, the regulations that specify the criteria for approving payments may relate to the personal circumstances of the individual concerned, but not the locality in which he or she resides. By way of brief background, the Committee should consider the several schemes that have been promoted by the Government. Their purpose—to improve the opportunities of people in an underprivileged position who may have little access to information technology equipment or find it harder to afford to remain in full-time education—was commendable, and in many instances they were welcomed by the individuals involved.

However, in schemes such as those that provide education maintenance allowances or assist in the purchase of computer equipment for individuals who might not otherwise be able to afford it, the criteria were framed around the local government ward in which the person resided. I have some experience of those schemes in my constituency, which ranges from one or two of the most affluent wards in north England to Manchester overspill council estates on the Sale, West side. I have seen real injustice arising through that approach. People whose circumstances were clearly difficult enough for any reasonable person to think that they would warrant inclusion in such a scheme were denied access purely because of their address, not their circumstances.

This is a simple point. If a scheme is avowedly intended to help individuals who are in difficulty, it is a manifest injustice for people to be prevented from benefiting because of their locality. I hope that Ministers will accept the principle that lies behind amendment No. 536 and realise that this is not a fair way of deciding the distribution of funds.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Gentleman will know that we introduced education maintenance allowances on a pilot basis in September 1999, initially in 15 local authorities and in a further 41 a year later. We will be evaluating the impact of those allowances on participation in post-16 education. The indications so far have been encouraging, with a typical five percentage point higher level of participation in areas where the allowances have been introduced, compared with other areas. It is important to emphasise that it is a pilot scheme. Before we go further we want to ensure that we are confident about its impact and that the substantial funding involved is warranted by the benefits in terms of higher participation.

If, on the basis of that evaluation, a decision is made to extend the availability of the allowances, we will consider national entitlement. However, at this stage we cannot rule out targeting pockets of disadvantage through the scheme. It is more likely that a difficulty with the amendment may arise in the possible phasing of a national roll-out. Any such arrangement, including the current one, inevitably causes difficulty at the boundary, for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman. Education maintenance allowances are available on a local authority basis, not a separate ward basis. Nevertheless, boundary issues arise. Any phased roll-out with introduction dates at different times for different areas would inevitably involve awkwardness. However, we would not want to rule out its possibility in legislation. The amendment would remove that option and the flexibility that it affords us.

I agree that partial geographic coverage is difficult. Once it has been properly evaluated, we want the pilot to come to a conclusion so that we can make a decision about the allowances on a national basis. I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will feel that the constraint that the amendment would introduce might be unhelpful in some circumstances, and that he will withdraw it.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I suppose that I was flying a kite with the amendment, but it is a worthwhile kite that I am pleased to have flown. I am grateful to the Minister for his guarded comments, which went a little way towards agreeing with my point. I leave him to consider, as he contemplates—without wishing to go too far into new Labour jargon—a phased roll-out of the programme to tackle social exclusion, that the social exclusion of a single mother living on benefits and supporting three children in a relatively prosperous, affluent area may be at least as great as, and possibly greater than that of a person in comparable circumstances in a less affluent area.

From the perspective of a constituent of mine who lives yards away from the local authority border, where Manchester city council is the local authority, it would appear to be grossly unjust to see an allowance made available to support the child of a neighbour down the road in continuing his education where that same benefit was not available to her child.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

My hon. Friend has made a good case. If the Government will not accept the amendment, it

would be helpful if they provided objective criteria for the selection of areas that would benefit under the scheme.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

That would be helpful. I do not intend to press the point any further, but I would be grateful if the Minister considered our points and provided clearer guidance on the circumstances in which the provisions may be used. I hope that he will take on board my concerns. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

I have not sought to table an amendment to subsection (2), but I would draw the Minister's attention to its apparent incongruity. He will be aware that many institutions offer a mix of education to a variety of young people. I cite the examples of North East Surrey college of technology in my constituency, and Merton college, where I was a governor. NESCOT offers higher education courses, as part of an affiliation to Surrey university, and it offers a wide range of vocational courses, some of which fall under the umbrella of further education. It also offers a diverse range of vocational training courses connected to different professions, careers and opportunities. The clause could create a financial division in such institutions.

The Government may press ahead with an allowance system for 16 to 19-year-olds in vocational training. However, those in higher education could end up paying for their courses and subsistence costs, while those in the next classroom were being paid to be in that institution. The Government must think carefully before developing a system of allowances. Although they are rightly keen to stress the importance of inclusion in our education system, we must not include financial support for one group at the expense of another.

The Government are focused on increasing the number of people in higher education from 33 per cent. to 50 per cent. Much of that increase will not come by admitting extra students into Oxford, Cambridge, Durham or Bristol, or any mainstream universities. It is more likely to come through the expansion of higher education courses in local colleges such as NESCOT. It will come through the provision of varied higher education courses that meet the needs of local employers and populations. Through that process, the dividing line between further education and higher education will become increasingly blurred. The Government need to think carefully before they stipulate that the relevant educational training must not be higher education. If they plan to increase the number of students in higher education to 50 per cent., they will not be able to make such clear distinctions. The Minister should be cautious about that.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I think that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that. There is a well-established system of higher education student support. As he will know, we are considering those details. Until the allowances

were proposed, there was no arrangement for supporting young people who were over compulsory school age but who were not yet in higher education. Compared with other countries, we have strikingly low rates of participation among young people. In 1998, there were proportionally fewer 17-year-olds in education in Britain than in any other OECD country except Turkey, Mexico and Greece. No one would suggest that that is how things should be. We need to be doing better in bringing more young people just over compulsory school age into education. The allowances are one of the ways that we have considered to achieve that, and we look forward to the full evaluation of their impact.

David Miliband (Labour, South Shields)

What are the main drivers of low participation? The Minister naturally focuses on the allowance system and the financial incentives, but the strongest predictor of post-16 participation is success at GCSE level. That implies that the reforms to secondary education and the improvement in standards in education for young people up to 15 may have as much effect on post-16 participation as direct financial incentives, if not more.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The answer is that many factors are involved. There is a culture among too many young people and their parents in this country that education finishes at 16. We want to change that and to encourage people to think of the period up to 19 as one in which they learn. We also hope that many more will go on to higher education. My hon. Friend is right about the importance of doing well at GCSE level and the consequent raising of standards in the secondary system. Our proposals will allow that to happen.

Chris Grayling (Conservative, Epsom and Ewell)

The Minister is talking about an option for an 18-year-old to go into higher education and study a course provided by a local college that is more vocational than used to be available, or to go into further education. However, there is currently no practical financial support for a student in higher education. Students take out a loan or pay for the course themselves. There is a danger that if there is an option to take up an allowance for a lesser course, or no such option for an HE course, that makes it more difficult to get those pupils who might not have gone into higher education to do so in the future.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point. There is the well-established system of student support for those taking part in higher education. That is different in character from the one that we envisage, but it is not the case that there is no support. The dichotomy that he presents does not arise. However, we want to increase participation in the immediately post-compulsory schooling years, and we are considering allowances as a way of achieving that.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Does the Minister accept that evidence suggests that post-16 participation rates tend to be higher where there is a school sixth form, and does he endorse the tremendous role of school sixth forms in helping to ensure that children stay on in education in post-compulsory school years?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I am happy to endorse and support the tremendous contribution of school sixth forms, sixth form colleges and further education colleges. There is a diversity of provision throughout the country, and that is how it should be. The current education maintenance allowances cannot be taken up after the age of 17. That also prevents the difficulty about which the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) was concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 175 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 176 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 177 - Transfer of functions relating to allowances under section 175

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I beg to move amendment No. 296, in page 106, line 10, leave out from 'authority' to end of line.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 297.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

These are technical amendments that would allow the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to transfer functions relating to maintenance allowances to an LEA. At the moment, the pilots are run by LEAs. That would be one of the options for a national scheme. As it stands, the clause qualifies LEA with the words

''for the purposes of the Education Act 1996''.

That qualification is unnecessary and could also imply a limitation on our ability to delegate a function to local level. I am sure that members of the Committee would agree that we would not want inadvertently to rule out LEAs from this role. The amendments ensure that we will not do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 297, in page 106, line 17, leave out from 'authority' to end of line.—[Mr. Timms.]

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

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

In the event of the maintenance allowance structure being rolled out nationally, with the possibility of the function relating to the payment of allowances being transferred to local education authorities, does the Minister expect that local authorities would disburse funds according to criteria set out on a national basis in regulations or would there be a discretionary element in the way in which they would use the funds?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I envisage a national framework for the allowances scheme. Several candidates could be the operators of the national scheme: the LEAs, the Benefits Agency or the Student Loans Company, for example. I do not rule out the possibility of local discretion on the working of the scheme, but a national framework, with possible local variations, would be introduced to apply across the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 177, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 178 and 179 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 180 - Student loans

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I beg to move amendment No. 550, in page 107, line 35, after second 'of' insert

'amounts payable in respect of'.

This is a technical amendment. The clause gives powers to pay off the student loans of individuals who meet criteria set in regulations and enables us to put into place our proposals to pay off over time the outstanding student loans of new shortage subject teachers from September this year. The amendment would clear up any uncertainty that might arise about whether subsection (1)(a) could allow the repayment of interest accrued on a teacher's student loan, as well as the face value of the loan. I want to make it very clear to the Committee that it is our intention that the scheme would allow repayment of the face value of the loan, and of the interest accrued. This amendment is here in order to put that beyond doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 533, ''in page 108, line 7, after

'regulations', insert ',according to criteria which may include the nature of employment undertaken by a person, or that person's income but not the type of school within which a person is employed.'.''

We are moving into an increasingly diverse pattern of educational provision, with education being provided and paid for both independently and through the academies model, which is provided by independent schools funded by the state.

The amendment seeks to probe the Government's attitude towards the teaching profession. It seeks to rectify an anomaly whereby, for the purposes of clause 180 as it appears in the explanatory notes, the repayment or reduction of student loans as an incentive for those entering the teaching profession is applicable only to those taking up positions in maintained schools. The contention of amendment No. 533 is that teaching is an indivisible profession. One may embark upon a career in a maintained school, then move to an independent school, transfer from that to an academy in a difficult inner-city area, taking on all the challenges that that entails, and then move back to the maintained sector. One may change between maintained schools and independent schools on any number of occasions during a career.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

This is a mythical journey.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to consider that it might be beneficial if it were not a mythical journey. Perhaps this movement is something that should be encouraged. It might be beneficial to have more movement between maintained and independent schools, particularly as we have the development of a category of state-funded independent schools, which to some extent blurs the distinction between the two categories.

If a person chooses to enter the teaching profession—the noble pursuit of educating children—is there a fundamental difference between teaching in a maintained school, an independent school or an academy? In terms of the explanatory notes, does the Minister anticipate that the limitation to repay loans would be restricted only to maintained schools and would not cover those teaching in academies? By excluding independent schools, is he excluding state-funded independent schools? That would certainly seem odd, even if he were of the view that only those schools that are financed from the Exchequer would qualify. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments.

During earlier stages of the Committee's deliberations we touched on the way in which the Government are keen to foster links between independent schools and maintained schools. As that process develops, as I hope it will, surely the increased movement of staff between schools will also develop. Surely it is unfair and anomalous for someone to be treated in a worse way in respect of pay and conditions or the golden hello—however Ministers want to phrase it—because they began their career in one school rather than another. The crucial point is that they are a teacher who is developing a career in the teaching profession. That consideration, not the nature of the institution in which someone teaches, should qualify or disqualify them for the assistance.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

We have no interest in funding recruitment and retention incentives for teachers in private schools or colleges. The hon. Gentleman speaks about teachers transferring between sectors, which of course they are at liberty to do, but it would not be appropriate for the Government effectively to provide subsidies to make it easier for teachers to move from the state-funded sector to the private sector.

The scheme in the Bill is part of a strategy to recruit high-quality teachers of shortage subjects to maintained schools and further education and to keep them there. We must be able to tailor eligibility requirements to the type of institution in which the teacher is working, so that we can focus the scheme on the eligible shortage subjects.

All maintained schools will come within the parameters of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman is right that academies are technically independent schools, so we also propose to include teachers in non-maintained special schools, city technology colleges and city academies, in line with our policy of putting all those institutions on an equal footing with maintained schools. We propose to cover publicly funded further education colleges and further education lecturers working in higher education institutions. We shall consult on those proposals shortly, but it would not be right, and the Government certainly do not intend, to extend the scheme to teachers working in the private sector.

The amendment would insert a reference to determining eligibility for the measure on the basis of a teacher's income, but we do not intend to base

qualification on income. All new teachers of shortage subjects who enter teaching from September 2002 will have their loans repaid provided that they meet all the eligibility criteria set out in the policy statement that Committee members have seen. The intention is that those who work full-time will have all their outstanding loans repaid over a period of up to 10 years and that those who work part-time will receive a pro-rata benefit.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

The Minister has answered many of my questions, but I should like to press him further on one point. If a maintained school buys in services, either from a company or an independent school offering educational services that might include the provision of teaching in the maintained school, will the provisions apply?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

No, they will not. The provisions apply only to employees of the type of schools that I described. The amendment would prevent us from introducing the scheme in the form that we propose, but that form will have the maximum impact on teacher supply in shortage subjects, where there are serious pressures. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman feels that the scheme will make a valuable contribution to arrangements for school children and that he will withdraw the amendment.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. This has been an interesting if brief debate. In a year or two, as more independent schools are funded by the state and Ministers use powers under clause 13 to reintroduce free places at independent schools and the boundaries between the state and the independent sectors become increasingly blurred, the Minister may want to reconsider this. For the time being I am content. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 180, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 181 - Education action zones

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

In earlier conversations about education action zones the Minister emphasised that they are not closing yet. There is no provision for them to close at all. Why has the Minister not taken the opportunity presented by the Bill to provide for their closure? Indeed, it may be the wish of some education action zones to close earlier than the Minister desires. There appear to be no provisions for closure anywhere and there will clearly be assets and liabilities.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

We had an exchange about this at an earlier sitting. There are no provisions in the Bill for the closure of education action zones because they are contained in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which is the legislation that established them. I made the point that it was always intended that the zones would have a fixed life. They were never intended to go on indefinitely. They were originally

established for three years and, as the 1998 Act allows, they have all been extended for five years. The Secretary of State will make a separate order in respect of each zone. The arrangements that we talked about last time will be in place to ensure that the zones will close down in an orderly way.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 181 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 16 agreed to.

Clause 182 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 17 - Amendments of School Inspections Act 1996

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to move amendment No. 557, in page 175, line 16, at end insert—

'In section 2(7) of that Act after paragraph (a) there is inserted—

''(b) shall at least once in each period of five years commencing upon the coming into effect of this Act carry out a review of the system and framework of inspection and report thereon to the Secretary of State who shall lay a copy of that report before each House of Parliament.'.

This is a brief amendment and I am sure that the Minister will agree to it readily. This picks up a recommendation that was made by the Minister's good friend, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who would like his job. As chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Skills he produced a report on Ofsted. One of the report's most interesting recommendations was that there should be a quinquennial review of Ofsted. That was a serious suggestion. Ofsted was introduced 10 years ago. It was interesting to note that in November, when Ofsted appeared before the Select Committee, the chief inspector said that he saw no need to alter its fundamental structure. The organisation began in such hostility a decade ago and has embedded itself in the education system.

Most commentators, professional associations, heads and teachers accept the need for a rigorous, independent inspection system. However, there is a need to create a structure that is in tune with the thinking of the Government—and, I believe, all political parties—who want a new, more vigorous, innovative, dynamic and diverse education system. Instead, we continue with an Ofsted framework that remains largely unchanged since its origin, although I accept that its style changed substantially, particularly under Mike Tomlinson, to the benefit of the entire system.

The Select Committee's view was that Parliament should have an opportunity every five years to review the structure and effectiveness of Ofsted. All organisations, including those that are created for the purpose of audit and inspection, should be subject to regular scrutiny to ensure that they are effective and that they change with the education system. That view was shared by some, but not all hon. Members. The former hon. Member for Guildford, Mr. St. Aubyn, who has moved on to better things, objected to any changes in the Ofsted system.

The Liberal Democrat party prefers a self-evaluation process at the heart of school

improvement. Most modern companies and organisations do not wait for the auditors or an inspector to come in every year, or every two, four or six years; that is a thing of the past. They try to achieve constant, incremental improvement, and the concept of total quality management affects every activity. Our vision is that a modern Ofsted would have as its prime function inspecting the inspection and audit systems of the schools, which should vigorously and constantly examine and question what they are doing.

A five-yearly review would enable the House of Commons to examine openly the work of this important body and make necessary recommendations. That would be good for Ofsted, the parliamentary system of scrutiny and our schools, which would see that the body that inspects them is also inspected.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Can the hon. Gentleman assist me—I do not have to hand a copy of the School Inspections Act 1996—by explaining on whom the responsibility would fall?

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

The responsibility would fall on Parliament. Any organisation that changes its terms of reference should be subject to scrutiny by Parliament in an affirmative resolution; the hon. Gentleman may disagree with that. A quinquennial review of Ofsted would fall into that category. Far too many organisations that have been set up in the gift of the Government or as quangos never come under parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment would provide for such scrutiny.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for endorsing the statement made recently by the Leader of the Opposition about putting such appointments in the hands of Parliament. I wonder whether he has in mind that the Select Committee should be responsible for auditing and reviewing the performance of the inspection body. In which case, does he agree that it is vital for us to see an improvement in the means of selecting the members and, particularly, the Chairmen of Select Committees? Such selection should have been taken out of the hands of Government Whips in the way that the Liaison Committee recommended last year, but the Government would not let the House debate it.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I often agree with the hon. Gentleman, because he is fine fellow, but this time I agree wholeheartedly. He made the serious point, as did the Liaison Committee, that if we want to return to a situation in which the Select Committees are genuine scrutiny bodies, they must have an air of independence that they do not have at the moment. The Education and Skills Committee is a classic example. There is not the necessary rigour, as we saw recently with the light touch way in which Ministers got off the hook over individual learning accounts. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear.] Conservative Members should not shout too loudly because it is bad for my image.

I urge the Government to accept the amendment.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has moved the amendment. He is right to suggest that organisations that are set up by Parliament, and called quangos by

the disrespectful among us, should be reviewed from time to time. I will first refer back to my intervention and his answer, because I am not sure that it is practical to lay a responsibility on Parliament. It is possible to lay a responsibility on the Secretary of State, the Education and Skills Committee or the chief inspector, but Parliament is a large and amorphous body, and I am unsure on whom the burden would fall.

That is not my main point, which is to celebrate the achievement of Ofsted. It was one of the greatest educational achievements of the Conservative years in government and should be credited in no small way to the former chief inspector, Chris Woodhead. He took what was a brilliant idea—I will not weary the Committee with recitations of my involvement, because it was relatively small—and made it work for the overall good of the education system. He introduced an element of rigour into the inspection process, which made it clearly objective and widely recognised. I understand that many people disliked the inspection process; some had good cause, because they deserved to be found out.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

We cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to get away with talking such utter nonsense. It was not the inspection regime to which people objected, but the style of the former chief inspector. He deliberately set out to demonise the process and ruin the careers and lives of many good teachers throughout the country. They fell foul of a regime that was draconian, oppressive and deliberately designed to cause confrontation in schools up and down the land.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Order. Let us keep to the amendment and not start discussing one particular individual.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I gladly accede to your ruling, Mr. Pike.

Miraculously, information has reached me about on whom the burden of the amendment would fall. It would fall on Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools for England. In the circumstances, to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred, of a chief inspector demonising the profession, terrifying teachers and frightening them out of their jobs, and up-ending schools for his own selfish pleasure and entertainment, the burden would fall on Her Majesty's chief inspector himself. I do not see that as an effective means of reviewing the future of Ofsted. That is a good enough reason for rejecting the amendment. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assertions about the intentions of an individual. We must not discuss such intentions. Some schools should have been inspected because they deserved to be found out.

Some teachers found the inspection process unduly daunting for two reasons. First, they were given too much notice of the arrival of the inspection, so their head teachers and governors could rewrite every conceivable document in the school. The threat of scrutiny was often over-emphasised. Secondly, local authorities saw it as part of their role to provide, at a

price, a pre-inspection inspection. What could be more daunting than to know that inspectors were on their way, and that there were to be two inspections?

I welcome the changes that would reduce the notice given for inspection. Since Ofsted was created, it has proved to be effective and has demonstrably improved standards, assisted the Government in their policy of improving failing schools and identified failing local education authorities that have contributed to the failure of our schools. It is recognised for those achievements in many other countries, such as Holland, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) recently visited. A rigorous inspection process is essential. We all hope that, one day, parents will have a transparent means of judging the quality of schools so we can get rid of that quango, as we have so many in the past, but we still have a long way to go.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough argued for a process of continual review of the inspection system and the framework, but the amendment would create a rigid, five-year, periodic big bang approach. I agree more with his speech than the amendment. The chief inspector already has a statutory duty to keep the system of regular school inspection under review. The record shows that the system has evolved since it was introduced in 1992. Recently, short inspections for the most effective schools, and a reduction to the notice given before inspection have been introduced, which will avoid a lengthy build-up of anxiety, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight pointed out. In the past few weeks, an external complaints adjudicator has been added to the system. The system is capable of being, and is being, continually modified and improved.

Last autumn, Ofsted conducted a review of the system. It consulted on a wide range of proposals to make inspection more responsive to the different circumstances and priorities of schools. That consultation was well received and it intends to implement those proposals from next year. As the head of a non-ministerial Government Department—not a quango; it is not a non-departmental public body—Her Majesty's chief inspector is directly accountable to Parliament for the management of Ofsted and for the public funds it administers. In practice, that scrutiny operates principally through the Education and Skills Committee, which is chaired by a Member not normally regarded as someone who responds without questioning to Government advice—quite rightly; he is an independent figure. Whether he would like to have my job, as has been suggested, I do not know. I suspect that that is not the case. That scrutiny is an effective way for Parliament to monitor what the inspection system is achieving.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Without passing comment on the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), does the Minister agree that it set an unfortunate precedent that his two immediate predecessors as chair of the Education and Skills Committee were made Ministers in the Department that they were previously meant to scrutinise?

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I do not think that is an unfortunate precedent. No doubt there have been plenty of instances of that happening in the past. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) speaks rightly from a sedentary position. The fact that someone becomes a Minister at a future point does not affect his independence as Chair of the Select Committee.

Arrangements have been put in place for the chief inspector to appear before the Select Committee twice a year. That is an opportunity for regular parliamentary scrutiny of the inspection system. He is next due to appear in March.

The Select Committee asked for a quinquennial review of Ofsted. The Government's response was that non-ministerial Government Departments do not have quinquennial reviews but non-departmental public bodies do. That proposal is rather different from that in the amendment, which provides for the whole system and framework of inspection to be reviewed every five years. I hope that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will agree that the model of continual review for which he argued rather than rigid five-yearly reviews is the right one to have in place. It is currently in place and I hope that he will feel it is appropriate to leave it as it is.

Phil Willis (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I am grateful to the Minister for his measured comments. I argued strongly that schools should implement the constant review process. That is extremely valuable; the Government should take up that issue and Ofsted should encourage it and inspect those systems. That applies also to local authorities.

I agree with the assessment of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. The chief inspector, as head of Ofsted, would have to report to the Secretary of State under the terms of my amendment. That report would then come under scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament in the most appropriate way. If that had previously been the case, some of the work of the former chief Inspector would have been dealt with. Some of the excesses would have been dealt with. The current system of evaluating Ofsted's work through its chief inspector's annual meeting with the Select Committee is wholly inadequate, irrespective of whether this or the previous Government are in power.

The Select Committee has no teeth. I was a member of that Committee and remember the former chief inspector simply saying that he did not agree and walking out—end of story. He then submitted his written response. He did all that to dismiss anything that the Committee said. We cannot have such a situation and, to be fair, Mike Tomlinson, the next chief inspector, had a different style. He took the Select Committee's comments on board and was able to make progress. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) is right. Until we have confidence in the Select Committee and its ability to scrutinise and make recommendations, the system will not be able to move forward.

I accept the Minister's comments, but I hope that in his discussions with the new chief inspector, he will bear in mind some of my comments about the continual improvement system, in which the Office

for Standards in Education should engage. I also hope that the new chief inspector will continue on the path of listening to others and will continue to improve the Ofsted process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I beg to move amendment No. 308, in page 176, line 29, leave out

'In paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to that Act'

and insert

'Schedule 1 to that Act (Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 1'.'

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 309, in page 176, line 32, at end insert—

'(3) In paragraph 2(3) (arrangements for persons other than staff to assist Chief Inspector require agreement of Treasury or National Assembly), for ''the Treasury'' there is substituted ''the Minister for the Civil Service or (in the case of the Chief Inspector for Wales) the National Assembly for Wales''.'

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

The amendments tidy up the clause and will ensure that the legislation catches up with changes that have been made elsewhere. Amendment No. 309 refers to the Minister for the Civil Service rather than the Treasury.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Will the Minister explain amendment No. 308? If the amendment takes effect, line 29 of page 176 will read:

''Schedule 1 to that Act (Her Majesty's Chief Inspectors) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 1 (power of Chief Inspector to appoint staff with the approval of Treasury or National Assembly), for ''the Treasury'' there is substituted ''the Minister for the Civil Service or (in the case of the Chief Inspector for Wales) the National Assembly for Wales''.

The first two lines do not make any sense.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

They make sense, although I was slightly lost by the hon. Gentleman opening all those brackets and quotation marks. I hope that if the hon. Gentleman looks again at that series of brackets, quotation marks and words, he will think that it makes sense. The intention behind amendment No. 308 is to enhance the readability of the text in the light of amendment No. 309. Nevertheless, I will reflect on the hon. Gentleman's concern, confident that I will be reassured when I do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 309, in page 176, line 32, at end insert—

'(3) In paragraph 2(3) (arrangements for persons other than staff to assist Chief Inspector require agreement of Treasury or National Assembly), for ''the Treasury'' there is substituted ''the Minister for the Civil Service or (in the case of the Chief Inspector for Wales) the National Assembly for Wales''.'—[Mr. Timms.]

Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 183 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 18 - Amendments of Part 5 of Education Act 1997

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I beg to move amendment No. 560, in page 176, line 36, leave out paragraph 1.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 561, in page 177, line 2, at end insert 'types of'.

No. 562, in page 177, line 4, leave out 'excessive' and insert 'reasonable'.

No. 563, in page 177, line 8, after 'approve', insert '(including terms of payment)'.

No. 564, in page 177, line 14, at end insert—

' ''(3B) Where the Authority shall exercise its powers later than at the time of accreditation, it shall give not less than 180 days notice of such changes to the producer of such qualification.''.'.

No. 565, in page 177, line 14, at end insert—

' ''(3C) Where the Authority shall exercise its powers later than at the time of accreditation the Authority shall bear the costs of any such changes, to the awarding body or educational institutions.''.'.

No. 566, in page 177, line 22, leave out subparagraph (ii).

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

In view of the topicality of these matters, it may be as well if I characterise these amendments as probing amendments, not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford yesterday called for a wide-ranging inquiry into examination boards and their performance. It would be unwise to pre-empt the Government's acceptance of that request, given that there is considerable uncertainty on a number of fronts.

The amendment seeks to probe the Government's intentions in regard to the examination boards and the powers that will be given to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Amendment No. 560 questions the Government's thinking on competition in the provision of examinations. By removing subsection (1) it would remove the power to reduce the choice of examinations available. The fundamental question is whether the Government believe that the best way to guarantee standards is to have a single provider and a limited choice of examinations—a route that might risk the problems that arose in Scotland 18 months ago where the whole system was subject to difficulties—or to have diversity and leave it to schools to decide which examinations offer the best standards and the best opportunities.

There is some concern that, perversely, competition drives standards down because there is an incentive for people to seek easier exams to get better apparent performance by achieving better grades. I sat Joint Matriculation Board A-level general studies. I apologise to the Committee for raising the matter and I would not do so had I not achieved an A grade. But at that point the better universities in the country—the northern universities—accepted that the quality of that exam was such that it was equivalent to an A-level in other subjects. They did not normally accord that status to other general studies A-level syllabuses. There is at least a possibility that where it is known that there is sufficient rigour in an examination

the competition process could operate in the normal way to raise standards rather than depress them.

Amendment No. 561 would replace the phrase

''the number of different accredited qualifications''

in proposed subsection (2A) of section 24 of the Education Act 1997 with

''the number of different types of accredited qualifications''.

Again, we are trying to ensure that choice remains available in the number and spectrum of qualifications on offer without allowing too much confusion in the system.

I accept that the danger with having too many types of examination or qualification is that those who depend on them to make decisions, such as the further or higher admissions authorities or employers, may become confused about the validity or worth of certain qualifications. However, including the words ''types of'' would aim at ensuring that, although the range of different types of qualification was limited, it remained possible to set a number of different accredited qualifications in similar subject areas to allow the proper diversity of curriculum and syllabus. I think that Ministers accept that that would be positive.

I do not know whether I am putting my hand up to a drafting error or pointing the finger at other people, but those who have been following our proceedings with particular attention will notice that amendment No. 562 would make more sense if it used the word ''unreasonable'' rather than ''reasonable''. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight picked that up immediately.

The amendment is designed to probe the Minister's definition of an ''excessive'' number of qualifications, because the new subsection refers to

''ensuring that the number of different accredited qualifications in similar subject areas or serving similar functions is not excessive''.

That is not defined and it is difficult to know what would constitute an excessive number. It would be better to ensure that the number was not unreasonable than to rely on the rather odd test of what was or was not excessive.

Amendment No. 563 deals with the powers regarding terms of payment for examinations. As I understand it, the Bill allows for the ability effectively to veto the terms of payment proposed by an examination board. Surely that is a matter for agreement between the board and its customers—unless Ministers envisage and possibly want to encourage the development of a monopoly provider. If so, one could see the logic of intervention powers on charges for particular examinations.

Amendment No. 564 raises a potential concern of examination boards, those sitting examinations and the educational institutions in which they sit them. It would introduce a requirement to give notice of at least 180 days if accreditation were to be removed from a qualification. The logic behind the amendment is that accreditation should not be removed during a period of study. At the very least, sufficient notice should be given, either so the examination board can take steps to rectify any problems or so that students and education institutions can take proper, reasonable

steps to change the curriculum that they are studying or secure other appropriate examinations.

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

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

Standing Committee G

Schedule 18 - Amendments of part 5 of Education Act 1997

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 561, in page 177, line 2, at end insert—

'types of'.

No. 562, in page 177, line 4, leave out 'excessive' and insert—

'reasonable'.

No. 563, in page 177, line 8, after 'approve', insert—

'(including terms of payment)'.

No. 564, in page 177, line 14, at end insert—

'''(3B) Where the Authority shall exercise its powers later than at the time of accreditation, it shall give not less than 180 days notice of such changes to the producer of such qualification.''.'.

No. 565, in page 177, line 14, at end insert—

' ''(3C) Where the Authority shall exercise its powers later than at the time of accreditation the Authority shall bear the costs of any such changes, to the awarding body or educational institutions.''.'.

No. 566, in page 177, line 22, leave out subparagraph (ii).

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Amendment No. 565 follows logically from the thrust of my argument on the other amendments, especially No. 564.

It is reasonable to build in a period of notice in the event that an accreditation is removed during a course of study leading up to an examination or qualification. It is also reasonable that where accreditation is removed during a course of study, the costs should be borne by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority rather than by the awarding body, school or educational institution that is involved in teaching that course of study.

Amendment No. 566 is designed to probe the Minister's intentions behind the broad rights of entry in the provisions that extend as far as allowing unfettered rights of entry when determining a reasonable fee. Subsection (2) should be deleted, thereby constraining the powers of entry to a certain extent. Although inspectors could enter the premises of an awarding body to satisfy themselves that the appropriate standards were being maintained in relation to the award or authentication of a qualification, they could not enter and have unfettered access to the awarding body's accounts and confidential papers.

It seems extreme to take powers to allow the QCA powers of entry to crawl all over the books of an awarding body to decide an appropriate fee for a qualification. That suggests that the Government believe that we are moving towards a single awarding body rather than several competing awarding bodies that can keep the fee under control through normal competition in the marketplace. We shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) in these proposals, particularly in so far as they are designed to probe the Government's intentions regarding competition between examining bodies and any intention they may have either of maintaining standards or of driving down prices by unifying the examining board as is the case in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills will be aware of cases that I have brought to his attention concerning the Edexcel examining board—in particular, its history syllabus 9267. I thank him for his responses to the concerns of my constituents and of the staff at Carisbrooke high school in my constituency who have had extraordinary difficulties with the board.

Thirty-six of the school's students took the history exam at advanced level in June 2001. If it is any comfort to my hon. Friend, I may tell him that I obtained a grade E in A-level history—it was, of course, much more difficult then. The pupils got worse results than expected, but most of them got good results in politics, which was taught by the same teacher. They launched an appeal on 19 August and were told that they would receive a reply within 20 to 30 working days. After 59 days, no response had been received. During that time, candidates of course suffer the danger of having their university applications rejected and their places given to someone else.

The lesson here is the inability of Ministers, despite their best endeavours, to offer any comfort. The Minister said that his officials had been in touch with the Joint Council for General Qualifications and he understood that the report on appeals would not be coming out until March 2002; that it would not contain the information that parents wanted; and that

''It is at the discretion of Edexcel to make such information public and I have been advised that they have no plans to do so''.

That seems extraordinary. I recall that when Sir Keith Joseph was Secretary of State the only power he had over examining bodies was to sign the certificates at O-level and A-level. On the back of that, he was able to introduce GCSEs. The lesson that some would draw is that we must have a single examining body under state control. That is not my conclusion—and I am glad to see the Minister shaking his head—because the clear message from Mary Hoather, the head teacher at the school, in her letter of 17 January to the chief executive of Edexcel is

''Clearly our frustration and anger has made us change examination board for our history examinations in future and is making us consider seriously for other subjects''.

In other words, the market is working. It would work a great deal better if there were not only three examination boards for England. It would work better still were people able to recognise openly that the standards of some examining boards are slightly higher than others.

I remember from my schooldays our slight criticism of those who took Associated Examining Board examinations rather than Oxford and Cambridge examinations, because we felt the standards were not the same. I am sure that that was recognised also by higher and further education institutions. I do not agree that there is competition to drive down standards, as long as there is transparency about which board issued the certificates. I hope that the Minister will assure me that there is no agenda to unify the examination under state control as has so lamentably happened in Scotland.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

May I take this opportunity for the last time to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) shared his history grade with the Committee: that might explain his distorted view of the previous Government's record—[Laughter.]—or perhaps not.

The comments on Edexcel underline the importance of the relationship between the QCA and the examination boards. The impact that such events have on students and their families is traumatic and stressful, and we should not understate the effect on those individuals. However, we should not exaggerate the problem and give the impression that the examination system is on the verge of collapse. If serious mistakes are made in a couple of examination situations, we have a responsibility to maintain an appropriate, balanced reaction.

Edexcel experienced difficulties during the curriculum 2000 reforms. The Government responded by asking the QCA to audit that examination board, and to report on the reasons for those weaknesses and failings. That report will be published soon, and will be a public document. MPs and others will be able to examine the reasons for those difficulties and the QCA's recommendations for putting them right.

The QCA has placed its head of quality assurance at Edexcel, to ensure that performance improves immediately. It is important that none of the mistakes be repeated when students take their exams in the summer. Committee members were right to express concern, but we should have a proportionate, responsible response. The conclusion that we make about the difficulties of one examination board should not lead us to believe that the best solution is to create a monopoly provider. That is not the Government's position.

It is appropriate to have choice and diversity, but we cannot tolerate too many failures of the kind that have occurred. It is important that the QCA use its powers. The amendments concern the relationship

between the QCA and the examination boards. That underlines the importance of the QCA's role as a regulator of the performance and standards of the examination boards, and its powers of intervention when mistakes are made.

Most of the amendments have reasonable objectives, although they are not necessary or desirable. Amendment No. 560 would remove the paragraph enabling the QCA to devise and apply criteria that would limit the number of qualifications in similar subjects or functions that it accredits. We consider that paragraph very important. We intend to have a robust and transparent framework of worthwhile qualifications that can be easily understood by users and the general public.

It is also important that learning and training needs in that context are fully addressed. Equally importantly, public choice and confidence may well be improved if the number of qualifications is reduced, and the unnecessary overlap and duplication in provision is eliminated. We believe that it is a sensible power to give the QCA when the qualifications framework is not actually supporting the objectives of raising standards and making things clear for students, when it is confusing, when it is unwieldy and when there is unnecessary duplication. We believe that it is appropriate to ensure that the QCA can intervene in those circumstances to streamline and rationalise in a reasonable way. We believe that the majority of people would support its having that reasonable power.

Over the past two years, the QCA has undertaken a substantial programme of accrediting qualifications up to and including level 3. It has accredited more than 3,000 qualifications. In many areas, we have the qualifications that we need, but there is a doubt about whether the QCA and its sister regulatory authorities can legally deny accreditation to qualifications that may otherwise be sound but may unnecessarily increase provision in particular subjects. If we are to avoid an undesirable proliferation of qualifications, it is important that the QCA should be able to have the power and the criteria to deal specifically with the issue of excessive numbers of qualifications. For that reason, we do not believe that amendment No. 562, which would replace ''excessive'' with ''reasonable'', would be helpful.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Is the Minister saying that amendment No. 562—which, as I said, was originally drafted to replace ''excessive'' with ''unreasonable''—is unnecessary because the word ''excessive'', as used in this clause, equates to the word ''unreasonable''?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

Yes. I think that the objective is the same. We would argue that there is no need to substitute the word in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Amendment No. 561 would reduce flexibility and could lead to perverse results in terms of what the QCA may want to achieve. As drafted, it would enable the QCA to limit the qualification types in which a particular subject is available, but not the number of qualifications in that subject. I think that the hon.

Gentleman would, on reflection, agree that such a change would not help us to achieve our goal of ensuring that there is not a proliferation of qualifications that are difficult to understand for candidates, teachers and employers.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

Does the Minister not agree that what is important for the transparency of qualifications and the ability of parents, employers and others to understand their value, is the rigour of the qualification itself, rather than the precise content of the curriculum in that subject? I am slightly concerned that the drift of his argument appears to be that it would be worrying to have a GCSE in the history of ancient Rome parallel to one on Carthaginian studies. The subject matter is surely less important. There should be that variety and choice of subject matter. Is not the legitimate goal of the QCA to ensure that the standard of those qualifications is rigorous and transparent to those who need to know?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I agree that that is central to the role of the QCA, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman would also agree that we do not want an unnecessary proliferation of qualifications, because that just leads to confusion. Yes, the primary responsibility of the QCA is to safeguard the rigour and standards of qualifications. That is absolutely central and it is particularly relevant, for example, in the context of the introduction of new GCSEs in vocational subjects, to be staged over two years, starting this September.

We believe, in the context of our 14 to 19 policy, that if we are to achieve parity of esteem for what has always been described as vocational education, it will be essential that the content of the qualifications—the rigour—is every bit as strong and respected as that of equivalent academic qualifications. We will work with the QCA to ensure that that is the case in the future. That will be a central part of what we are saying about wanting to give more young people more opportunities in what has been described as vocational education. I think that we would all agree that we have not in the past succeeded in making vocational education work in this country, and if it is now to work and be effective, the robustness, quality and credibility of the qualifications will be absolutely essential, so I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the QCA's general responsibilities in those areas.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am grateful to the Minister and pleased that he accepts that point. By way of illustration, could he give us an idea of the kind of overlap or duplication that he thinks would be unnecessary or unwelcome in terms of subject matter, so that we can see how Ministers might envisage these criteria being used to limit the number of different subjects being offered within a qualification?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

If the Bill is enacted, it will be the role of the QCA to make those judgments. One example would be if we had 10 virtually identical qualifications but they were badged or branded slightly differently, leading to unnecessary confusion and a lack of clarity about what each qualification actually meant. That would not be efficient or lead to the kind of credible, transparent system that we want to create. We want to give the QCA reasonable powers, as the body that is

charged with those responsibilities, to make credible and reasonable decisions. I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about seeking to limit the QCA's capacity to take such decisions. That is one of the reasons that the QCA exists in the form that it does.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am not concerned about trying to limit the QCA's role, I am concerned to know why the Minister is so keen to extend its role in this way, why he believes these criteria need to be available and in what circumstances they would be used. The example that he gave, that there may be 10 qualifications all differently branded but rather similar, seemed to suggest that he was referring to types of qualification, rather than subjects, and that his concern was that there could be a City and Guilds, a BTEC and perhaps something else, all in relatively similar subject areas. He has not actually given any indication of where he believes the subject areas covered by qualifications may be too close and would need to be altered in the way that the Bill provides.

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

It is clearly possible that those circumstances will arise in future, so it makes sense to give the QCA the power to deal with them. I see no risk in giving the QCA the ability to take reasonable management decisions in that regard.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

May I illustrate the point? The word ''branded'' was used, which will lead us astray if we are not careful. There are three examination boards, each of which offers a history syllabus. The brand is the name of the board, not the name of the syllabus. The badge is the name of the syllabus, which might be ''History, 20th Century''. All three boards may offer broadly the same syllabus but with different brands. I hope that the QCA will not try to prevent the offer of the same syllabus with different brands. It might try to prevent the offer of differently badged but similar syllabuses by the same board. Is that correct?

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

Yes, that is the point. Many bodies do not issue generic qualifications; they issue individual qualifications. As he is probably aware, there are 98 awarding bodies largely offering vocational qualifications. That reinforces the point that it makes sense to give the QCA the power, where appropriate, to rationalise the situation sensibly and responsibly if it becomes confusing for students, employers and others for whom it is important to get the provisions right. That is all that we seek to do. We expect the QCA to exercise reasonable judgment, and overall it has a good track record.

The changes that we are making through schedule 18 are designed to provide clarification and make changes to the powers of the QCA that are in line with the legislation's original intention. Amendment No. 563 proposes a significant change by removing the QCA's ability to make a charge for accreditation work. The QCA has not considered that and does not propose to do so now, but there may be circumstances in which it is necessary to reconsider the position. It is therefore important that the QCA retain that power.

On amendments Nos. 564 and 565, I appreciate the concern that the QCA might impose conditions post-

accreditation unreasonably and that that might detrimentally affect the awarding bodies' cost base or economic viability. However, I believe that that concern is not well founded. As I said, we expect the QCA to carry out its functions reasonably and to take soundly based decisions. Indeed, as a statutory body, it must legally act reasonably. In doing so, we expect the QCA to take account of the costs of any conditions that are intended to support policy developments.

The QCA is also expected to consult the relevant awarding body before imposing any post-accreditation conditions. As a matter of administrative law, it is bound to do so. However, it would be highly undesirable to impose an arbitrary time bar for a condition that may result from the need to address a problem in the delivery of a qualification that is uncovered during post-accreditation monitoring. That is an example of where the power may be necessary. In those circumstances, urgent action may be required if the learner's best interests are to be served.

Equally, it would not be appropriate to require the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to pay systematically for the implementation of those changes. It is difficult to predict the conditions that the QCA may want to impose post-accreditation rather than waiting until the qualifications come forward for re-accreditation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West will agree that if the conditions work to remedy weaknesses in an awarding body, it would be inappropriate for the QCA to pick up the tab.

Amendment No. 566 would remove the proposed change that would give the QCA the right of entry to premises to inspect and copy documents in connection with its power to limit an exam fee. The QCA already has a right of entry, but only in particular circumstances. The current legislation gives the QCA the right of entry only to ensure that standards in qualifications are being maintained. It was an oversight in the original legislation to provide the QCA with a power to limit an exam fee but not with the means of obtaining evidence to help it to take a well-founded decision, and paragraph 4 will remedy that. It is a power that would be used only as a last resort, but it is important.

Despite the recent difficulties, the QCA and the awarding bodies generally have a good working relationship, and it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which the power would be needed. However, the Committee must ask itself whether, as we are giving the QCA the power to enter to maintain qualification standards, it would be consistent not to give it the right to obtain the necessary evidence on exam fees. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to insist on the amendment.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I am considering what to do. I started by saying that the group of amendments was intended to probe the Government's thinking and intentions. I am glad that we tabled the amendments, because they have prompted a useful exchange. The Minister was

good enough to say that he thought that the amendments were reasonable and that he had some sympathy with the apparent objectives. It is not altogether surprising therefore that his response was not entirely convincing.

We have established that there is some uncertainty in the intentions of this part of the Bill, and it is not clear how the powers may be used in future. We seem to have moved to and fro on the limitation of the number of qualifications that will be on offer, between one concerning the nature of the qualification or the brand or badge that it carries and one that applies to the subject matter or curriculum. That highlighted a weakness in the Government's thinking, and Ministers should reflect further on that, and attempt to give greater clarity to the bodies concerned.

In responding to amendment No. 561, the Minister was good enough to agree that the primary responsibility of the QCA is to safeguard the rigour of the qualifications. It is a necessary reserve power that he anticipated would not be used that often. He was helpful and concise on amendment No. 562 in confirming that the definition that applied to the word ''excessive'' should be the same as that applied to the word ''unreasonable''. That will help those who are affected by the legislation.

On amendment No. 563, the Minister said that these were reserve powers that were not likely to be used very often. When discussing amendments Nos. 564 and 565, he said that a notice period should not be required because there may be a need to act quickly. I accept that, but I hope that Ministers will consider whether guidance might be given that would encourage the maximum notice to be given if these powers are to be used.

On amendment No. 565 and the question of who should bear costs, the Minister said that if an awarding body was at fault, it was unreasonable to expect the QCA to cover the costs. However, accreditation might be removed for reasons other than the fault of the awarding body. The QCA may have changed its approach and revised its expectations of awarding bodies, and in certain circumstances it may be appropriate to expect the costs to be covered. I ask him to reflect on that. Helpfully, he said that the new power in paragraph 4(2) allowing rights of entry to establish whether fee levels are feasible was envisaged as a power of last resort.

Again, Ministers may be able to give greater certainty to the awarding bodies about the procedure that might be undergone before the QCA might have recourse to that power of last resort. Certainly it could legitimately expect that in ordinary circumstances it could supply information requested by the QCA and have it taken at face value. Ministers may be able to find a way to resolve that problem.

I am not entirely satisfied by the Minister's responses on these amendments, but in the light of his comments and our useful exchange, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 18 agreed to.

Clause 184 - LEA functions: qualifications

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

May I also for the last time welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike? I am sure that when you and I attend the next works outing we will have many happy reminiscences of our time in Committee Room 10.

This clause is intended to clarify the legal position of local education authorities in England and Wales that engage in the award or authentication of educational qualifications. It makes specific provision for LEAs to develop, deliver and award qualifications and to charge a fee for those services. It also enables LEAs to make arrangements with other persons and form, participate in or be members of a body corporate to exercise these powers. The clause applies those provisions retrospectively so that there will be no doubt that LEAs that have exercised them hitherto have done so lawfully. As the provisions are for clarification, they do not limit any existing powers of LEAs.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 184 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 185 to 189 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11 agreed to.

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I beg to move, That schedule 11 be transferred to end of line 5 on page 178.

This minor change ensures that the order in which schedule 11 appears on the list of schedules to the Bill matches the order in which the relevant clauses give effect to them. Clause 189 gives effect to schedule 11. The change will have no legal or policy effect. Currently, schedule 11 appears before schedules 12 to 18. According to convention, however, it should appear after them, as they are given effect by clauses that precede clause 189.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 190 - Publication and provision of material

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

My question relates to subsections (4) and (5). Will the Minister clarify what ''qualifying material'' means? I take it that it is not material that is specified verbatim by the National Assembly, but material that fulfils purposes outlined by it. In those circumstances, it is interesting that subsection (5) states:

''No material published or provided under this section may name any individual to whom it relates.''

If parents are choosing a school for their children, one thing that may interest them is who the head teacher is. They may also be interested in whether a former pupil is a Wales international rugby player, a successful pentathlete or something similar. Will it be illegal to name them under the clause?

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I can help the hon. Gentleman. The clause provides for local education authorities and governing bodies of LEA-maintained schools in Wales to publish material provided to them by the National Assembly, which is designed to help parents to gain a broader understanding of the performance of schools in their communities. The ''qualifying material'' referred to in the clause will include public examination results and outcomes of national curriculum assessments.

The clause enables the qualifying material to be put in context by the inclusion of value-added indicators and benchmark data that reflect the socio-economic conditions that prevail in different communities and different parts of Wales. The intention is that any information that the National Assembly requires LEAs or governing bodies to publish under the new power will first be checked by each school concerned.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Is that in addition to anything that schools or local authorities may choose to publish?

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 190 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 191 - Partnership agreements and statements

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The clause appears to be very widely drawn and allows the National Assembly for Wales to alter completely the balance of responsibilities between school governing bodies and local education authorities from the settlement in the Education Reform Act 1988 that was substantially re-enacted in the Education Act 1996 and the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. My remarks may relate better to the next clause, but may save us debating that clause. The clause will also alter the power of parents to express a choice of school for their children. Will the Minister clarify whether the powers have the effect that I fear they have?

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I refer to my remarks on the previous clause, in which I stressed the importance of giving information so that parents can make proper choices about where their children are educated. The clause enables the National Assembly to make regulations that require any LEA in Wales to enter into a partnership agreement with the governing body of each school maintained by that authority, or each school of a prescribed class. The agreements will be about how the LEA and the governing body of a school discharge their functions in relation to the school in such matters that may be prescribed and other matters that the LEA and the governing body may agree should be prescribed. It is necessary to sustain and enhance existing partnership working between the LEA and the schools maintained by that authority in that way, so that both parties can work together effectively to promote high standards of education in those schools.

We envisage that the partnership agreements will set out the procedures that the LEAs and schools should adopt to establish agreed common objectives for pupils' educational progress, the actions that the authority will take in exercising its functions, such as visits by advisory staff, and action to be taken to ease the transition of pupils between phases of education and schools. The regulations may provide for review of the agreement and for a deadline by which the LEA or governing body may comply with any requirement imposed by the clause. The clause also enables the LEA to draw up a statement setting out how it and the governing body will discharge their respective functions in relation to the school if neither party is able to reach an agreement.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

That explanation is certainly helpful, but it would assist me if the Minister would consider an example. Let us say that the LEA would like to have a firmer agreement about the redeployment of redundant teachers than is possible under the current legislation, although we know that schools, not LEAs, are responsible for the appointment of teaching staff. The LEA canvasses the views of Members of the National Assembly, which requires LEAs to enter into a partnership with their governing bodies.

The purpose of the partnership arrangement is that matters such as facilitating the redeployment of redundant teachers may be prescribed. Some schools object on the grounds that they do not want others' cast-offs, but the LEA may be closing several schools and is determined that it will be less expensive. Most schools in the area do not have any vacancies for teachers and so do not fear the consequences. Most of the schools are able to reach an agreement with the LEA, for the purpose of subsection (1), but one or two schools may not. The LEA then draws up a statement that sets out how they will discharge their respective functions, and governing bodies accept redeployment staff who are available in the LEA. Does the clause permit that?

Don Touhig (Labour/Co-operative, Islwyn)

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the clause sets out only how LEAs and governing bodies carry out their functions. It does not alter their functions. It cannot change the law through the power, and so could not change any of their responsibilities in relation to staffing.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I thank the Minister for that explanation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 191 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 192 and 193 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 19 agreed to.

Clause 194 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 195 - LEA functions concerning school lunches, milk etc

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I have a question about proposed new subsection 512ZA(2) on page 117, which says:

''A local authority shall charge every person the same price for the same quantity of the same item''.

That sounds admirable. In some schools, teachers are provided with lunch free of charge in return either for specific duties or an agreement to undertake lunchtime supervision or other activities. Would that be forbidden by the clause? Similarly, would it be forbidden for schools to offer lunches to old people in the local community at either a reduced charge or the market rate?

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I want to raise another example that might be important under this clause and on which I would welcome the Minister's reassurance. Might it be sensible and appropriate in various circumstances for a larger quantity of certain foods to be offered at the same price? I shall not detain the Committee for long with this anecdote, but when I was at university there was a dispute in my college over the amount of food available to students. The principal at the time, a splendid lady named Irene Hindmarsh, made the memorable suggestion to the junior common room that we should always sit next to a person of the opposite sex, on the premise that a larger male sitting next to a smaller female might have some of the food that the girl did not want. I am sure that many beautiful relationships began as a result.

A more prosaic example in the context of a school is where a class has been out on the playing fields on a cold winter's morning and a well-meaning dinner lady gives a little extra food to those in need of sustenance. It would be unfortunate if an over-prescriptive clause were to prevent such a common-sense act of kindness.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I look forward to the hon. Gentleman moving on Report an amendment based on his JCR experiences.

The clause replaces section 512 of the Education Act 1996, which allows LEAs to provide and charge for meals, milk and other refreshments to prescribed persons receiving education. Changes to other legislation have made the original intentions less clear than they were. Some aspects of the legislation are at risk of becoming unworkable. The changes to the benefits and tax credits system have changed the background to these measures.

The Bill provides for an order-making power to allow the Secretary of State to add to the benefits allowances or tax credits that would entitle a child to receive a free school lunch. The Secretary of State can limit eligibility to families in receipt of particular tax credits by reference to their income level. I am glad to tell the Committee that the Secretary of State has agreed that those children who would have lost their entitlement to free school meals because of the changes proposed by the Treasury to the tax credit system will have their entitlement protected. We will adjust the free school meal eligibility criteria to secure free school meals for all children who currently receive them, and for others in similar circumstances in the future. The entitlement of about 100,000 children will be protected, and the changes will bring about the

extension of free school meal entitlement to an additional 89,000 children in England and Wales. My hon. Friend the Paymaster General is now announcing that news to the Committee considering the Tax Credits Bill, not far from here.

The concerns expressed by Opposition Members about further changes are not warranted. The school can pay the cost of teachers' lunches. That is the current basis on which teachers are provided with free lunches, and nothing in the Bill will change that. That will also be true of meals given to visitors: the example of elderly people was cited. The Bill creates a new power for school governors to provide services to the community. Opposition Members need not be concerned that anything is lost in the arrangements; in fact, there are significant gains.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I have a small but significant point to make. I did not pick up one particular assurance from the Minister. He said that new section 512ZA states that every person should be charged the same price for the same quantity of the same item, but that is not the case. It is possible to offer different portions at the same price.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Nothing here changes the existing position of kind dinner ladies. That is the reassurance that the hon. Gentleman was hoping for.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 195 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 196 - Further education institutions: fees

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I shall move that the clause should not stand part, and I would like to explain why. Significant representations have been made about the clause from organisations such as the Association of Colleges, on the basis that the power already exists in the Learning and Skills Act 2000. We are satisfied that the clause would be superfluous.

Clause 196 disagreed to.

Clause 197 - Further education institutions: records

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I beg to move amendment No. 390, in page 119, line 17, at end insert—

'( ) The regulations may, in particular, impose a function on—

(a) a local education authority, or

(b) the governing body of a further education institution.'.

The amendment is purely technical. It relates to a power under section 218 of the Education Reform Act 1988, which is being repealed and re-enacted in the clause. The clause simply provides legal reinforcement for further education institutions to share records with other providers. The amendment ensures that the powers are complete. By virtue of the amendment,

regulations can, for example, place specific obligations on governing bodies of further education colleges to keep and share records. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 197, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 198 to 200 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 20 agreed to.

Clause 201 - Recoupment: adjustment between

Ivan Lewis (Labour, Bury South)

I beg to move amendment No. 298, in page 120, line 34, leave out from 'education' to end of line 37.

This is a drafting amendment to remove the definition of further education from the clause. Such a definition is redundant because the clause applies only to primary and secondary education. The clause replaces the existing provisions that regulate payments between local education authorities. It is intended that, as now, the regulations will affect payments only for certain categories of pupils receiving education in a different authority from the one to which they belong. From April 2002, further education will be funded by the Learning and Skills Council, not by LEAs, so the clause does not apply to further education and the definition is not required.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 201, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 202 and 203 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 204 - Orders and regulations

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I beg to move amendment No. 299, in page 121, line 23, at beginning insert—

'Subject to subsection (1A),'

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 300 to 302 and 391.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

These are all minor technical amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 300, in page 121, line 24, leave out from 'Act' to 'is' in line 25.

No. 301, in page 121, line 25, at end insert—

'(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to any order under—

(a) section 161 or 186, or

(b) paragraph 3(6) or 5 of Schedule 1.'

No. 302, in page 121, line 31, leave out 'section 83(3)(a)'.

No. 391, in page 122, line 1, after '(3)(c),', insert—

'( ) section 124(2),'.—[Mr. Timms.]

Clause 204, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 205 to 207 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 208 - Transitional provisions etc.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I beg to move amendment No. 303, in page 124, line 6, at end insert—

'( ) In this section ''statutory provision'' has the same meaning as in Chapter 1 of Part 3.'

This is a technical amendment that corrects an omission in the original drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 208, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 209 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 210 - Commencement

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I beg to move amendment No. 284, in page 124, line 25, leave out 'and 63' and insert—

'to 65 and Schedule 7'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 423.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

These are both minor and technical amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 423, in page 124, line 33, after 'paragraphs' insert—

'paragraphs 3A, 4A, 4B, 33B, 45A and 65A of Schedule 21, and section 209(1) so far as relating to those paragraphs,'.—[Mr. Timms.]

Clause 210, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 211 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 21 - Minor and consequential amendments

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I beg to move amendment No. 569, in page 184, line 38, at end insert—

'Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (c. 14)

In section 46(3) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (fare-paying passengers on school buses), for the definition of ''free school transport'' there is substituted—

'' 'free school transport' means transport provided by a local education authority free of charge—

(a) in pursuance of arrangements under section 509(1) or (1A) or section 509AA(7)(b) or (9)(a) of the Education Act 1996, or

(b) otherwise, in the exercise of any function of the authority,

for the purpose of facilitating the attendance of persons receiving education or training at any premises;''.'.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Government amendments Nos. 311 to 313, 392 to 394, 424, 314, 395, 396, 483, 397, 315, 567, 316 to 318, 286, 398, 319, 320, 399 to 401, 321, 402, 403, 559, 322, 462, 323 to 326, 404, 327, 328, 405 to 407, 329 and 408.

Amendment No. 463, in page 190, line 39, leave out 'within the meaning of' and insert—

'pursuant to a notice published under'.

Amendment No. 417, in page 192, line 7, at end insert—

'In section 88 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (Admission authorities and admission arrangements), after subsection 1(a) insert

''( ) in relation to an Academy, the proprietor of the Academy''.'.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I have written to all Committee members with some further explanation on the amendments. Several previous technical amendments have not taken up much time in Committee. The amendments in this group, although it is very long, are all technical and include two provisions that are minor and consequential. I do not intend to give a lengthy explanation, although if there are any questions I shall be happy to answer them.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 311, in page 184, line 38, at end insert—

'Education Act 1986 (c. 40)

In section 1(1) of the Education Act 1986 (payment of grant) for ''either of them'' there is substituted ''that body''.'

No. 312, in page 184, line 38, at end insert—

'Education Reform Act 1988 (c. 40)

In section 124(1)(ba) of the Education Reform Act 1988 (power of higher education corporation to provide secondary education) for ''to persons who would, if they were pupils at a school, be in the fourth key stage'' there is substituted ''suitable to the requirements of persons who have attained the age of fourteen years''.'

No. 313, in page 184, line 38, at end insert—

'Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (c. 53)

In paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (tribunals under general supervision of Council on Tribunals) for paragraphs (b) and (c) there is substituted—

''(b) exclusion appeal panels constituted in accordance with regulations under section 49 of the Education Act 2002;

admission appeal panels constituted in accordance with regulations under section 94(5) or 95(3) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998;''.'

No. 392, in page 184, line 38, at end insert—

'Building Act 1984 (c.55)

In section 4 of the Building Act 1984 (exemption of educational buildings from building regulations), for subsection (1)(a)(ii) there is substituted—

''(ii) particulars submitted and approved under regulations made under section 544 of the Education Act 1996,''.'.

No. 393, in page 184, line 38, at end insert—

'Children Act 1989 (c.14)

In Schedule 9A to the Children Act 1989 (child minding and day care for young children), for paragraph 4(2)(b) there is substituted—

''(b) he is subject to a direction under section 138 of the Education Act 2002, given on the grounds that he is unsuitable to work with children;''.'.

No. 394, in page 184, line 38, at end insert—

'Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c.43)

In section 98(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (definition of ''educational institution''), paragraph (c)(ii) is omitted.'

No. 424, in page 184, line 38, at end insert—

'Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983 (c.40)

In section 1 of the Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983 (fees at further and higher education institutions), subsection (6) is omitted.'

No. 314, in page 184, line 39, at end insert—

'In section 18(1)(aa) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (power of further education corporation to provide secondary education) for ''to persons who would, if they were pupils at a school, be in the fourth key stage'' there is substituted ''suitable to the requirements of persons who have attained the age of fourteen years''.'

No. 395, in page 185, line 6, at end insert—

'3A In section 26 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (transfer of staff to further education corporation), subsection (9) is omitted

3B In section 37 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (net expenditure of institution about to join further education sector), the following provisions are omitted—

(a) subsection (1)(b) and the word ''or'' immediately preceding it,

(b) subsection (8)(a), and

(c) subsection (9).'.

No. 396, in page 185, line 10, at end insert—

'4A In section 43 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (remuneration of employees in educational institutions), for subsection (3) there is substituted—

''(3) This section does not apply to remuneration determined in accordance with an order under section 118 of the Education Act 2002 (determination of school teachers' pay and conditions).''.

4B Section 48 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (transfer of institution to further education sector) shall cease to have effect.'

No. 483, in page 185, line 10, at end insert—

'4C (1) Section 52A of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (duty to safeguard pupils receiving secondary education) is amended as follows

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for ''persons who would, if they were pupils at a school, be in the fourth key stage'' there is substituted ''persons of compulsory school age'', and

(b) in paragraph (a), for ''in pursuance of arrangements falling within section 18(1)(aa) of this Act'' there is substituted ''by virtue of section 18(1)(aa) or (ab) of this Act''.

(3) In subsection (2) for ''such pupils'' there is substituted ''persons of compulsory school age''.'.

No. 397, in page 185, line 20, at end insert—

'In section 14 of the Education Act 1994 (qualification of teachers, &c.), subsections (1), (3) and (4) are omitted.'

No. 315, in page 185, leave out line 30 and insert—

'(1) Section 28L of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (exclusions) is amended as follows

(2) In subsections (2)(a) and (5)(a) for ''section 67(1) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998'' there is substituted ''section 49 of the Education Act 2002''.

(3) In'.

No. 567, in page 186, line 14, at end insert—

'(1) Section 3 of the Education Act 1996 (definition of pupil etc) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (1) there is inserted—

''(1A) A person is not for the purposes of this Act to be treated as a pupil at a school merely because any education is provided for him at the school in the exercise of the powers conferred by section 25 of the Education Act 2002 (power of governing body of maintained school to provide community facilities etc.).''

(3) In subsection (3) for ''Subsection (1) also applies'' there is substituted ''Subsections (1) and (1A) also apply''.'.

No. 316, in page 187, line 21, at end insert—

'In section 402 of the Education Act 1996 (obligation to enter pupils for public examinations) in subsection (6), for ''and'' at the end of paragraph (a) there is substituted—

''(aa) 'assessment arrangements' and 'fourth key stage'—

(i) in relation to a school maintained by a local education authority in England, have the same meaning as in Part 6 of the Education Act 2002 (the curriculum in England), and

(ii) in relation to a school maintained by a local education authority in Wales, have the same meaning as in Part 7 of that Act (the curriculum in Wales); and''.'

No. 317, in page 187, line 39, after 'State' insert 'and'.

No. 318, in page 187, line 41, leave out 'voluntary school' and insert 'by the authority'.

No. 286, in page 188, line 35, at end insert—

'33A In section 533 of the Education Act 1996 (c.56) (duties of governing bodies with respect to provision of school meals etc), for subsection (3)(b) and (c) there is substituted

''and

(b) charge every person the same price for the same quantity of the same item.''.'.

No. 398, in page 188, line 35, at end insert—

'33A In section 545 of the Education Act 1996 (exemption of educational buildings from building byelaws), in subsection (2)(a) the words ''or section 218(7) of the Education Reform Act 1988'' are omitted

33B In section 578 of the Education Act 1996 (meaning of ''the Education Acts''), the reference to the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991 is omitted.'

No. 319, in page 189, line 9, after '(4B)(a),' there is inserted—

'(a) after ''foundation special school'' there is inserted ''or maintained nursery school'', and

(b)'.

No. 320, in page 190, line 8, at end insert—

'Education Act 1997 (c. 44)

In section 26 of the Education Act 1997 (supplementary provisions relating to discharge by Qualifications and Curriculum Authority of their functions), in subsection (1)(c)(i) for ''section 351 of the Education Act 1996'' there is substituted ''section 74 of the Education Act 2002''.

In section 32 of the Education Act 1997 (supplementary provisions relating to discharge by Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales of their functions) in subsection (1)(c)(i) for ''section 351 of the Education Act 1996'' there is substituted ''section 95 of the Education Act 2002''.'

No. 399, in page 190, line 8, at end insert—

'Education Act 1997 (c.44)

44A Section 49 of the Education Act 1997 (regulations about access to children) shall cease to have effect.'

No. 400, in page 190, line 8, at end insert—

'Police Act 1997 (c.50)

44B (1) Section 113 of the Police Act 1997 (criminal record certificates) is amended as follows

(2) In subsection (3A)—

(a) in paragraph (a), sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) are omitted,

(b) for paragraph (b) there is substituted—

''(b) if he is included in the list kept under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (c.14), such details of his inclusion as may be prescribed;'', and

(c) after paragraph (b) there is inserted—

''(c) whether he is subject to a direction under section 138 of the Education Act 2002; and

(d) if he is subject to a direction under that section, such details of the circumstances in which it was given as may be prescribed, including the grounds on which it was given.''.

(3) In subsection (3B)—

(a) for paragraph (b) there is substituted—

''(b) a position which involves work to which section 138 of the Education Act 2002 applies;'',

(b) paragraph (c) is omitted, and

(c) the words from ''and the reference'' to the end are omitted.

44C In section 115 of the Police Act 1997 (enhanced criminal record certificates), in subsection (6A)—

(a) in paragraph (a), sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) are omitted,

(b) for paragraph (b) there is substituted—

''(b) if he is included in the list kept under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (c.14), such details of his inclusion as may be prescribed;'', and

(c) after paragraph (b) there is inserted—

''(c) whether he is subject to a direction under section 138 of the Education Act 2002; and

(d) if he is subject to a direction under that section, such details of the circumstances in which it was given as may be prescribed, including the grounds on which it was given.''.'.

No. 401, in page 190, line 8, at end insert—

'Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (c. 30)

44D In section 1 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (establishment and functions of General Teaching Council), subsection (8) is omitted

44E In section 2 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (advisory functions of General Teaching Council), in subsection (4),

for ''by virtue of section 218(6) of the Education Reform Act 1988 (prohibition or restriction on employment of teachers)'' there is substituted ''under section 138 of the Education Act 2002 (prohibition from teaching, &c.)'' 44F In section 3 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (registration of teachers), in subsection (3)—

(a) the words ''within the meaning of section 218(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988'' are omitted, and

(b) for paragraph (a) there is substituted—

''(a) subject to a direction under section 138(1)(a) of the Education Act 2002 (prohibition from teaching, &c.),''. 44G In section 4 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (regulations relating to registration with General Teaching Council), for subsection (3)(a) there is substituted—

''(a) a direction given under section 138 of the Education Act 2002 (prohibition from teaching, &c.),''. 44H In section 7 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (additional functions of General Teaching Council), in subsection (3), for the words from ''the exercise'' to the end there is substituted ''the specification of requirements of regulations under section 128 of the Education Act 2002 (qualified teacher status)''.

44J Section 10 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (further functions of General Teaching Council for Wales in relation to teachers) shall cease to have effect.

44K Section 11 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (registration requirement for school teachers) shall cease to have effect.

44L In section 12 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (deduction from teachers' salaries of fees for registration with General Teaching Council)—

(a) for subsection (2)(b) there is substituted—

''(b) required to be registered in the register by virtue of section 130 of the Education Act 2002'', and

(b) in subsection (4), for the definition of ''schools'' there is substituted—

'' 'school' means a school maintained by a local education authority or a special school not so maintained''.

44M Section 13 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (consultation about qualified teacher status) shall cease to have effect.

44N Section 18 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (qualifications of head teachers) shall cease to have effect.

44P In section 19 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (requirement for school teacher to serve induction period)—

(a) in subsection (7), for ''section 49 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986'' there is substituted ''section 127 of the Education Act 2002'',

(b) in subsection (8), after ''local education authorities'' there is inserted ''in Wales'', and

(c) for subsection (10)(b) there is substituted—

''(b) 'relevant school' means a school maintained by a local education authority or a special school not so maintained''.

44Q (1) Schedule 2 to the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 (disciplinary powers of the General Teaching Council) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 1(4) for the words from ''of any powers'' to the end there is substituted ''of the powers exercisable by him, in cases which he considers concern the safety and welfare of persons aged under 18, under section 138 of the Education Act 2002—

(a) on the grounds that a person is unsuitable to work with children, or

(b) on grounds relating to a person's misconduct or health.

(3) Paragraph 1(5) is omitted.''.'

No. 321, in page 190, line 9, at end insert—

'In section 7 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (approval, modification and review of statement of proposals) subsection (10) is omitted.'

No. 402, in page 190, line 9, at end insert—

'In section 1 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (duty to set limit on infant class sizes), for ''qualified teacher'' there is substituted ''school teacher''.

In section 4 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (interpretation) for the definition of ''qualified teacher'' there is substituted—

'' 'school teacher' means a person who is a school teacher for the purposes of section 118 of the Education Act 2002 (determination of school teachers' pay and conditions)''.'.

No. 403, in page 190, line 14, at end insert—

'45A Section 13 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (disapplication of school teachers' pay and conditions order) shall cease to have effect.'

No. 322, in page 190, line 18, at end insert—

'46A (1) Section 16 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (power of local education authority to appoint additional governors) is amended as follows

(2) In subsection (5) for ''(despite anything in Part II of Schedule 9)'' there is substituted ''(despite anything in regulations under section 18 of the Education Act 2002)''.

(3) In subsection (10) for ''(despite paragraph 14 of Schedule 9)'' there is substituted ''(despite anything in regulations under section 18 of the Education Act 2002)''.

46B (1) Section 18 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (power of Secretary of State to appoint additional governors) is amended as follows

(2) In subsection (5) for ''(despite anything in Part II of Schedule 9)'' there is substituted ''(despite anything in regulations under section 18 of the Education Act 2002)''

(3) In subsection (6)(b) for ''paragraph 14 of Schedule 9'' there is substituted ''regulations under section 18 of the Education Act 2002''.'.

No. 559, in page 190, line 38, after 'authority' insert 'in England'.—[Mr. Timms.]

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Now to amendment No. 463.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

Moved formally.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

On a point of order, I wonder whether we might have some clarification. Amendment No. 463, which I did not move, appears also on our selection list as Government amendment No. 463, which the Minister has apparently moved formally. Can you elucidate whether the fact that I did not move it or the fact that the Minister did takes precedent?

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

There is a typing error on the selection list. Amendment No. 463 has not been moved. I hope that that clarifies the point. I now ask the Minister to move formally the rest of the Government amendments to this schedule.

Amendments made: No. 323, in page 191, line 30, leave out 'In'.

No. 324, in page 191, line 31, leave out from 'have' to 'subsection' and insert—

'delegated budgets) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (4) for ''local schools budget'' there is substituted ''LEA budget or schools budget''.

(3) In'.

No. 325, in page 192, line 11, leave out paragraph 58 and insert—

'58(1) Section 127 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (code of practice for securing effective relationships between local education authorities and maintained schools) is amended as follows

(2) In subsection (2), after ''maintained school'' there is inserted ''or maintained nursery school''.

(3) In subsection (6)—

(a) after paragraph (c) there is inserted—

''(cc) section 16A(1),'',

(b) paragraphs (e), (f), (h), (i) and (k) are omitted, and

(c) after paragraph (l) there is inserted—

''(m) regulations under section 18 of the Education Act 2002, so far as relating to the appointment of persons as local education authority governors,

(n) regulations under section 28(3) of that Act (governors' reports),

(o) regulations under section 30 of that Act (control of school premises),

(p) sections 34 and 35 of that Act (staffing) and regulations under those sections, and

(q) Schedule 2 to that Act (effect on staffing of suspension of delegated budget),'' '.

No. 326, in page 192, line 25, at end insert—

' ''foundation governor'', in relation to a foundation school, a foundation special school or a voluntary school, means a person appointed as a foundation governor in accordance with regulations under section 18 of the Education Act 2002;'.

No. 404, in page 192, line 29, after '142(1)', insert—

'( ) in the entry beginning ''qualified teacher'' for ''qualified teacher'' there is substituted ''school teacher''.'

No. 327, in page 192, line 29, leave out 'and' and insert—

'( ) in the entry beginning ''foundation governor'', for ''paragraph 2 of Schedule 9'' there is substituted ''section 142(1)'',

( ) in the entry beginning ''individual schools budget'', for ''section 46(2)'' there is substituted ''section 45A(3)'',

( ) after the entry beginning ''land'' there is inserted—

''LEA budget (in Part 2)section 45A(1)'', and'.

No. 328, in page 192, line 31, at end insert—

'and

( ) after the entry beginning ''school which has selective admission arrangements'' there is inserted—

''schools budget (in Part 2)section 45A(2)''.'.

No. 405, in page 194, line 10, at end insert—

'65A In Schedule 32 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (transitional provisions), paragraph 7 is omitted.'

No. 406, in page 194, line 11, at end insert—

'65B Section 5 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (prohibiting or restricting employment of teachers, &c.) shall cease to have effect.

65C (1) Section 7 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (effect of inclusion in lists of individuals unsuitable to work with children) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a), sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) are omitted,

(b) in paragraph (b), for ''any of those lists'' there is substituted ''that list'', and

(c) after paragraph (b) there is inserted—

''(c) shall ascertain whether he is subject to a direction under section 138 of the Education Act 2002, given on the grounds that he is unsuitable to work with children; and

(d) if he is subject to a direction under that section given on those grounds, shall not offer him employment in a child care position''.

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for ''any of the lists mentioned in subsection (1) above'' there is substituted ''the list kept under section 1 above or subject to a direction under section 138 of the Education Act 2002, given on the grounds that he is unsuitable to work with children'',

(b) the word ''and'' immediately preceding paragraph (c) is omitted,

(c) in paragraph (c), for ''any of those lists'' there is substituted ''the list kept under section 1 above'', and

(d) after paragraph (c) there is inserted ''; and

(d) if the individual was subject to a direction under section 138 of the Education Act 2002, given on the grounds that he is unsuitable to work with children, does not offer him employment in a child care position''.

(4) Subsection (4) is omitted.

65D In section 9(2) of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (proceedings of the Tribunal), for paragraph (b) there is substituted—

''(b) on an appeal, application for leave or review under section 139 of the Education Act 2002;''.'.

No. 407, in page 194, line 14, at end insert—

'66A(1) Section 12 of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (interpretation) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), the definition of ''the 1988 Act'' is omitted.

(3) In subsection (3), for paragraph (a) there is substituted—

''(a) it involves work to which section 138 of the Education Act 2002 applies;''.'.

No. 329, in page 194, line 15, at end insert—

'66A (1) Section 7 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (funding of school sixth-forms by Learning and Skills Council for England) is amended as follows

(2) In subsection (1)(a) for ''local schools budget'' there is substituted ''schools budget''.

(3) In subsection (3) for ''Local schools budget'' there is substituted ''Schools budget''.

66B(1) Section 36 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (funding of school sixth-forms by National Council for Education and Training for Wales) is amended as follows

(2) In subsection (1)(a) for ''local schools budget'' there is substituted ''schools budget''.

(3) In subsection (3) for ''Local schools budget'' there is substituted ''Schools budget''.'.

No. 408, in page 194, line 24, at end insert—

'Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c.43)

67A (1) Section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (persons disqualified from working with children: offences) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (4)(b) there is substituted—

''(b) he is subject to a direction under section 138 of the Education Act 2002 (prohibition from teaching, &c.), given on the grounds that he is unsuitable to work with children,''.

(3) Subsection (5) is omitted.'.—[Mr. Timms.]

Schedule 21, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 22 - Repeals

New clause 5 - City colleges

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

New clause 2 is listed for debate, but it has been debated previously. You cannot debate it, but you can ask a question. If you wish to move it formally, I can put the question.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

No, sir.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Stephen Timms (Labour, East Ham)

I should like to make a few remarks before we formally report the Bill to the House. On behalf of the entire Committee, I wish to express our thanks to you, Mr. Griffiths, and to Mrs. Adams, whom we have not seen for a few weeks. Between you, you guided our deliberations with great skill, and we are grateful to you for bringing us successfully to this point in our deliberations.

I also thank the Clerks and all those who have worked with the Committee: the Hansard reporters, the police, the messengers and others. I wish to thank my officials, who have worked extremely hard over a long period—a good deal longer than we have—and who will continue to work on the Bill for some time to come. I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who shared much of the load on the Front Bench with great skill, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who ensured that the interests of Wales were promoted and safeguarded throughout our deliberations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), played an influential role off as well as on the record. The contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) have not been recorded in Hansard but have been none the less considerable. I also wish to thank all my other hon. Friends, whose contributions have been distinguished more by their quality than their quantity. I want to express my thanks to them for their forbearance.

I also thank Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West contributed in a courteous and measured manner, which has helped the Committee, and only rarely gave vent to bouts of indignation. I also thank his colleagues on the Front Bench.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made contributions characterised by vigour and commitment, which the Committee appreciated, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) will pass on those sentiments. We have also appreciated the well-informed and warm banter between the hon. Member for Isle of Wight and his good friends in the Liberal Democrat party. That has entertained us a great deal.

The Bill will raise standards, especially in secondary education. We shall realise our ambition for a modern and effective secondary system that commands the confidence of every community in the country. All Committee members will receive an invitation from the all-party group on children, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who is organising a performance by children linked to NCH Action for Children to convey their views about secondary education. That will be on 7 February, and may be of interest to hon. Members. I thank Committee members for their interest and commitment, and I conclude by thanking you again, Mr. Pike, for steering us successfully to a conclusion.

Graham Brady (Conservative, Altrincham and Sale West)

I know that the Minister will be reassured to learn that I remain indignant—I am just not showing it. We have concluded the Committee stage in a better manner than we began it. I am pleased that we were able, albeit at a late hour, to convey the importance of proper scrutiny. We are grateful that the Government acceded to a request for more time on Report, in recognition of those parts of the Bill that were not sufficiently scrutinised in Committee because of timetable constraints.

On behalf of myself, and my hon. Friends in Her Majesty's Opposition, I thank you, Mr. Pike, and your colleagues in the Chair who have assisted us. I thank the Clerks and the other staff of the House whose services have been invaluable and unfailing. I also thank officials who have been helpful in ensuring that Opposition Members receive answers to questions that Ministers cannot supply off the top of their heads. I particularly thank my hon. Friends, who have been unstinting in their service, and constant in their attendance. Today is a slight exception because one is unwell, and another is speaking in Westminster Hall shortly.

I also thank our friends, in this context, from the Liberal Democrats. We have found surprising amounts of common ground, which should give pause for thought to Ministers and make them a little worried. Despite our differences, on matters of substance regarding the Bill and on procedural matters, we have enjoyed good-natured debates. I am grateful to the Ministers, who have contributed to that, and their colleagues on the Government Benches. Finally, Mr. Pike, I renew my thanks to you for your courteous and helpful chairmanship.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

May I convey the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for not attending the end of the proceedings. Unfortunately, he had to attend an important meeting in his constituency about the rail crisis, but a rail strike prevented him from getting there and he had to leave the Committee early. We have also enjoyed the proceedings and are grateful to the Ministers for the reasonable way in which they dealt with Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members' inquiries. We also thank you, Mr. Pike, and the other Chairmen of the Committee, and the officials and others who were involved in the proceedings. We enjoyed the opportunity to debate fundamental issues of principle, and less fundamental issues about schools at risk of falling into the sea and other matters, which were also important to consider.

We have learned several important lessons that we will pass on to those who focus on the targeting strategy of the Liberal Democrats at the next general election, and I am sure that the Isle of Wight will receive even closer attention than usual. I say that in the nicest possible way, and we look forward to further proceedings of the Bill.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

Those comments are traditionally made at the end of a sitting and are almost out of order, although the Chairman never rules them out of order. I will pass them on to the other Chairmen of the Committee. This is the first time that I have chaired a Committee, and I have enjoyed it, although the first

sitting was a little tiring. However, I warn the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills that if he keeps referring to Manchester City and its relationship to Burnley in future sittings, I might jump on him quickly. If Burnley does not reverse its table position by the end of the season, I hope that we will repeat 1946–47, the first year after the war, when City went up as champions from the second division and Burnley were runners-up.

To conclude, when some hon. Members discussed history this afternoon, it reminded me that when I started school we learned in air raid shelters, so that what for some people were current affairs are now history.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at four minutes to Four o'clock.