Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

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

'Subject to subsection (1A) below'.

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

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

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

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

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

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

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

Mr Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Bury South, Labour)

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

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I share the

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

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

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

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

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

Mr Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Bury South, Labour)

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

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

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

Mr Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Bury South, Labour)

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

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Bury South, Labour)

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

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

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

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

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

It is a proactive Liberal Democrat policy.

Mr Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Bury South, Labour)

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

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

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

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

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

Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest, Conservative)

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

Mr Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Bury South, Labour)

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

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

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

Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest, Conservative)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Bury South, Labour)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

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

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

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

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

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

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

Mr. Willis, do you wish to do that?

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

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

Mr Ivan Lewis (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Bury South, Labour)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury, Conservative)

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

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

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)

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

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

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

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

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

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)

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

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

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

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

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

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

Mr Stephen Timms (Minister of State (School Standards), Department for Education and Skills; East Ham, Labour)

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

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

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