Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

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

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

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

Clause 27(2) states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

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

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

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

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. 183, in page 17, line 11, leave out 'comply with' and insert 'take account of'.

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

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

are placed under a duty to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ms Caroline Flint (Don Valley, Labour)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Caroline Flint (Don Valley, Labour)

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 5.