Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

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

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

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

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

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

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

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

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

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

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

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

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

Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury, Conservative)

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

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Caroline Flint (Don Valley, Labour)

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

and the wider community about putting those measures into practice.

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

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

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

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

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

Ms Caroline Flint (Don Valley, Labour)

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

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Brady rose—

Chris Grayling rose—

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

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

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

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

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

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

Order. Interventions should be shorter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Grayling rose—

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

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

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

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.