Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 193, in page 25, line 38, leave out

'it appears to the Secretary of State that'

and insert:

', according to criteria prescribed by order under the affirmative resolution procedure,'.

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 269, in page 25, line 38, leave out

'it appears to the Secretary of State'

and insert

', according to a formula to be set out in regulations,'.

Amendment No. 266, in page 25, line 38, after 'circumstances', insert:

'having taken advice from the schools forum,'

.

Amendment No. 270, in page 25, line 44, at end insert:

'(1A) Regulations under this section may also specify a formula to calculate the minimum per pupil funding for each category of school as a proportion of the schools budget for a given local education authority. Where the minimum funding level is not reached for a school or category of schools the Secretary of State may require that funding should be increased to that level as a condition under section 45A(4)(b)(ii).'

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

This is a quartet of amendments, but more properly should be considered as two couplets, although I cast no doubt on the ordering of their selection.

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

As long as they are rhyming ones.

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

You ask too much of me, Mr. Griffiths. I shall deal with the second couplet first. Amendment No. 266 is a probing amendment to establish what the Minister thinks about the role of the schools forum, and the scope of its activities and role in advisory matters. In particular, it would extend the advisory role of the schools forum beyond what Ministers have in mind, which they say will inform decisions taken by local authorities. It would require that, under new section 45B, if the Secretary of State exercised the power to set a minimum schools budget for the LEA, he, too, should have regard to the views of the schools forum. I do not wish to labour the point. Why should the schools forum have a valued role in advising the local education authority on budgetary measures if it does not have the competence to advise the Secretary

of State on schools funding matters that relate to the locality?

Amendment No. 270 was tabled to tantalise the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, and he will be disappointed to know that it, too, is probing. It does not go anywhere near proposing the establishment of a national funding formula, which is what he would like, but it would set out a backstop on which schools could rely to provide a minimum share of the schools budget for each school or category of school. The way in which it would do that may not be close to Ministers' hearts. The Bill gives the Secretary of State unfettered discretion to decide on a minimum share, whereas the amendment would establish a formula by which a minimum budget share could be worked out.

I want to draw out the Minister's thinking on the overall level of the schools budget for an LEA area, and find out whether an important part of the ministerial decision-making process concerns the way in which that money is spent and divided between schools. Our earlier exchanges, which related to the timetabling for the decision-making process, might lead us to assume that he thinks that Ministers have an interest only in a global figure for a schools budget, but I want to draw out his thoughts a little further.

I now turn to the couplet that I suggested is more important. I am falling over myself to be helpful to Ministers and am offering them an à la carte menu. I am confident that they will accept the power of my argument that one or other of the amendments should be accepted. I leave it to them to decide which, and am happy to withdraw either if given appropriate assurances.

Amendment No. 193 is my preferred amendment. It would shift the definition of criteria for intervention away from the incredibly wide discretion that is allowed in new section 45B(1). The amendment would change that definition from what appears to be an entirely subjective decision-making process for the Secretary of State to fixed, transparent criteria that are agreed by affirmative resolution of the House. That would be not only of assistance to Ministers, who would not be in the invidious position of having to arrive at an entirely subjective decision on what might be a controversial matter, but of enormous benefit to local authorities. Instead of waiting for the Secretary of State to pronounce on whether their schools budget was adequate or inadequate, they would be able to consult using the clear published criteria, which would have been agreed following debate in this House. They would be able to ascertain Ministers' thinking, as they would be required to argue the case for their criteria. Local authorities would also be able to consult the regulations, and have certainty as to the likely treatment of a proposed budget settlement put to Ministers.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

Does my hon. Friend not agree that such regulations or arrangements would save a huge amount of time for head teachers, governors and a whole host of the education community in many local education authorities? Without them, I am sure

that there would be a temptation to lobby right hon. and hon. Members, Ministers and officials, to organise deputations to this place, and to spend a huge amount of money, time and effort coming to this place from distant parts of the kingdom. That would be overridden, perhaps by the Department, in due course. However, were there objective criteria to be consulted, that time and effort could be devoted to education.

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

My hon. Friend makes a useful point. Not only would that help to avoid unnecessary burdens of bureaucracy on head teachers, local authorities and governing bodies, it might help to avoid unnecessary and pointless activity by Members of Parliament, who, under the Bill, could go to Ministers in the role of supplicant without knowing what criteria the Secretary of State had in mind. Therefore, they would not know whether they were wasting their time and that of their constituents, or whether they were giving false hope to schools, schools forums or other bodies in their constituencies. A more open, transparent process would improve, on every count, the outcome that Ministers want to achieve. It would assist the budget process of local authorities, and it would be helpful to all concerned if there were particular criteria by which Ministers would arrive at a judgment.

I said that I was going to be helpful, and that I was offering Ministers a choice. Given that they loathe affirmative resolutions, do not like to be troubled to come to this House, and prefer to have untrammelled powers, I have also offered them a slightly lower hurdle over which to jump, in the form of amendment No. 269. It would play a similar role in establishing transparent regulations for those involved in the decision-making process, but would stop short of insisting on the affirmative resolution procedure. If Ministers accept that it is in everybody's interests that the criteria that are used to decide whether a school's budget is at an acceptable level should be readily available and clear to all concerned, but their stumbling block is that they do not want to have to come to this place to justify their views, and they do not want to be troubled with debate on them in all circumstances, they could opt for amendment No. 269. It would still provide for regulations to set out matters clearly, but would not require them to be approved by affirmative resolution.

I hope that the Minister accepts that it would be helpful in all stages of the decision-making process if the criteria used to make the judgment were available to all to be consulted on and not hidden behind closed doors in the Department for Education and Skills.

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

I shall first set out what the Government intend to achieve through the reserve power that the clause introduces. It is one of the most contentious aspects of the Bill, and there has been much debate about it outside the Committee. As we made clear, the new funding system for local authorities and schools that we shall introduce for the financial year 2003–04 will replace the current single spending assessment for education with a

separate assessment for the schools budget and for the central budget of each local education authority. The schools figure will be announced publicly. Under existing local government finance legislation, we shall provide that each authority must make a clear and simple statement to its council tax payers of how its schools budget compares with its schools assessment.

We are therefore relying principally on transparency in the new system to ensure that LEAs provide appropriate funding for their schools sector. However, our experience in recent years has been that although the great majority of LEAs have been willing to pass on annual increases in funding to their schools, a small minority have not, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said. We do not want schools to face cuts instead of the funding increases for which the Government have provided, so we are establishing a reserve power under which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can, if necessary, set a minimum level for an authority's schools budget. We do not want to use the power, and I hope that we shall never have to use it. It will certainly be used rarely, if at all, but we would be failing our schools and pupils if we did not provide for the power as a back-up.

I shall respond first to the couplet of amendments Nos. 193 and 269. As the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West hinted, they contradict each other, although he expressed that differently.

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister made an important point about what he is attempting to do. I think that few of us would disagree with his intentions, but he has not committed himself to ensuring that, no matter where a local authority is located, it will receive a minimum entitlement. That is Liberal Democrat policy, so I am delighted that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West has come on board. The average primary education funding per pupil is £1,934. The minimum that some authorities receive is £1,551, and the maximum is £4,939. At secondary level, the minimum is £1,420, and the maximum is £5,157. The average is £2,483. Before the Minister can realise his vision and before he ever has to use his powers, that fundamental discrepancy between what students receive in one part of the country and what they get in another needs to be addressed.

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

Order. This is a long intervention. It is more like a speech.

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

I have made my point.

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

The hon. Gentleman is asking me to describe the funding system that we will introduce for 2003–04. Of course, I am not in a position to do that today. However, we have made it clear that an element of the system will be an amount per pupil, which will apply throughout the country. We envisage that amount being increased when there are clear grounds to do so, such as circumstances in a local area that would incur additional costs and therefore warrant additional spending. By the sound of things, the hon. Gentleman will support the new system when we describe it in detail, which I hope to be able to do in the spring.

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

Before I make my substantive point, I draw the Minister's attention to the days when we

were younger when the team to which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough appears so attached were noted for dressing themselves all in white yet were known as the dirtiest players on the pitch. There could be an odd parallel.

Will the Minister assure me that when he does the work that he mentioned, he will take account of significant regional differences in costs for schools, such as teaching and facilities costs? I am sure that the Minister is aware of my worries about costs in the south-east, and I want reassurance that that will be reflected in his work.

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

Yes, indeed. We intend to reflect in the new formula, when it is published, the significant additional costs that are incurred for reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentioned or because of other issues that arise in schools, such as pupils' needs.

I turn to amendments Nos. 193 and 269. We set out in the explanatory notes some of the circumstances to which the Secretary of State will have regard when deciding whether she should set a minimum level of budget for schools in an authority. Page 18 of the notes mentions such circumstances as how a local education authority's proposed school budget compares with its school funding assessment, the performance of an LEA's schools, pressure from other services and the degree to which the authority fails to pass on increased funding that is provided for its schools. I accept entirely that local education authorities should know how they can avoid the risk of the Secretary of State setting a minimum schools budget. The answer to that is simple. Any authority that passes on the annual increase in its schools assessment to its schools budget may be certain that it will not risk the power being invoked.

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister is saying that if an authority does not pass on the element that the Secretary of State gives for education, the Secretary of State may invoke these powers. If the authority spends more than its standard spending assessment, would the Secretary of State use the powers?

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

I did not say what the hon. Gentleman said that I said. I shall put it the right way round. An authority that passes on the annual increase in its school assessment to its schools budget will not be at risk of the power being invoked. However, the converse is not the case. The Secretary of State will not set a minimum budget for every authority that fails to pass on the increase in its assessment. On the contrary, we expect the power to be exercised very rarely. Before it is exercised, the Secretary of State must take account of all relevant circumstances.

I have mentioned some circumstances that are referred to in the explanatory notes. That is not an exhaustive list. There may be other criteria that the Secretary of State should consider. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West commended to the Committee the virtues of having a fixed list—I think that that was his expression. However, I suggest that that is not the most helpful way to proceed in the interest of local authorities. If we listed every criterion through a formula in regulations or by some other device, at some point in the future we would find

something that had been omitted, which the Secretary of State would not be allowed to consider in making a judgment. It is in the interests of local authorities that that process should not be prescriptive. The list commended by the hon. Gentleman may not include an exceptional pressing local circumstance, which everyone agrees should be taken into account. The clause ensures that the Secretary of State will have the flexibility to take such matters into account, which he would not be able to do if the criteria were set in advance.

Under new section 45C(5), any order prescribing a minimum schools budget, which is set out clearly in the clause, will have to be set out in draft and approved by a resolution in the House of Commons. Any exercise of that power will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The existing wording requires the Secretary of State to take account of all circumstances so that she cannot leave any relevant ones out. The amendments would not be to the advantage of local authorities.

Amendment No. 266 would require the Secretary of State to take the schools forum's advice before determining a minimum amount for an authority's schools budget. The problem is the timing: a very tight window in early February when the matter must be decided by the Secretary of State. It is not possible to build into the process a formal consultation with every schools forum. A forum would still be able to reach an immediate view on the LEA's budget plans and communicate that view to the Secretary of State, but it would not make sense to build that into the process.

Amendment No. 270 would allow the Secretary of State to specify minimum per pupil funding for different categories of school. In the new funding system, the Government will be concerned with the split of funding between the schools budget and the LEA budget and, in this case, with the minimum size of the schools budget. The distribution of funding between schools should remain a matter for the LEA in consultation with its schools. The LEA is best placed to take that decision, which needs to be taken locally and in the light of local circumstances. Given those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West will withdraw his two couplets of amendments.

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. As I indicated in my opening comments, amendments No. 266 and No. 270 were of a probing nature. I am somewhat satisfied with the Minister's assurances. I accept his point about amendment No. 266, which would create an unrealistic timetable for the Secretary of State, although it does clarify earlier points made about the difficulties that the timetable will create. I shall not press amendment No. 266 to a Division.

On amendment No. 270, we received some interesting enlightenment from the Minister about the framing of the new schools funding arrangements, which shows that a division of funding between schools, or at least a minimum funding level,

features in the Government's thinking. I shall not press that amendment to a vote either.

Regarding the other amendments, I note that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough complimented me on adopting Liberal Democrat policy—not something on which I have ever been congratulated before. Given his comments, I was surprised that he had not tabled amendments to what the Minister described as the most contentious clause of the Bill. I would be delighted if the hon. Gentleman were to support us when we press our amendments to a Division.

I said that I would be happy if the Minister were to give his blessing to either of the amendments. He said that the explanatory notes shed some light, but they are not binding in that instance. They cannot set out the criteria on which the Secretary of State will make any future judgment. The Minister also said that the powers would be used as reserve powers, and that he expects that they will be used infrequently. Neither we, nor schools, nor local authorities can rely on that. The Minister hardly reassures us when he says that the Government want this unlimited, unfettered power, but do not intend to use it. He cannot bind his successor or that of the Secretary of State. The powers can always be given wider use in future under the legislation.

The Minister went on to say that the use of the powers to direct schools' budgets would require a resolution of the House. That is welcome, but it does not deal adequately with the need for those bodies that will be affected by such an order to know in advance whether they will be subject to an order under the provisions.

Sadly, the Minister could not say whether members of the Government would be encouraged to support amendments Nos. 193 or 269. He leaves me with little option but to press both amendments to a vote to establish which one the Minister would like his hon. Friends to support.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 11.

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

By means of that Division, we have ascertained that the Government did not wish to support amendment No. 193. We have established what we want, and I shall not press amendment No. 269 to a vote.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 207, in page 25, line 40, leave out from 'year' to 'is' in line 41.

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 208 and 209.

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

This group of amendments addresses an embarrassing loophole in the clause, which would mean that if an LEA simply failed to provide notice, the Secretary of State could not proceed with setting the minimum schools budget. That is clearly not how the clause should work, and the amendments ensure that if the LEA does not provide the information, the Secretary of State can proceed in the way that is set out in amendment No. 208.

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

I want to make a point about the principle of the amendment. On several occasions, I have expressed to the Minister my disappointment that when Opposition Members, in good faith, have tabled amendments designed to tidy up the drafting of the Bill, the Government have determinedly resisted listening or making even the smallest modifications to improve the quality of the drafting, and the legislation, and to clear up apparent discrepancies. There is woolly drafting throughout the legislation.

Therefore, it is altogether right that the Government should be unwilling to listen to contributions on drafting matters from Opposition Members but willing to come back and ask the Committee to make amendments to correct errors that they have made during the earlier parts of their work. I hope that, if the Committee accepts the Government's amendments in a spirit of understanding that when legislation is drafted, mistakes are inevitably made, then during the rest of the debate on the legislation the Minister will give sensible credence to, and be willing to support, Opposition amendments designed to improve the quality of the legislation.

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

The hon. Gentleman has, on several occasions, made unwarranted criticisms of the parliamentary draftsman who has worked on the legislation. He thinks that his proposals will improve the quality of the legislation, but I disagree.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 208, in page 25, line 44, at end insert—

'(1A) If at the end of January in any financial year a local education authority has failed to give the Secretary of State a notice under section 45A(5) in relation to their schools budget for the following financial year, the Secretary of State may, at any time after the end of that January, give the authority a notice under subsection (2) or (3).

(1B) In this section and section 45C ''the year under consideration'' means the financial year to which the notice under section 45A(5) relates or, in a case falling within subsection (1A), the financial year in relation to which such a notice ought to have been given.'.

No. 209, in page 25, line 45, leave out from 'determining' to end of line 2 on page 26 and insert

'the minimum amount of the authority's schools budget for the year under consideration'.—[Mr. Timms.]

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 129, in page 26, line 12, after 'notice', insert

'and the opinion on the effect of the notice on their services of other Secretaries of State as appropriate.

( ) ''the effect of the notice on their services of other Secretaries of State as appropriate'' in this clause means in England

(a) in respect of the effect on social services provision by the authority, the Secretary of State for Health;

(b) in respect of the effect on highways, transport, planning, economic development and housing provision by the authority, the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions;

(c) in respect of the effect on other services, such Secretary of State or Secretaries of State as the local education authority consider appropriate.

( ) ''the effect of the notice on their services of other Secretaries of State as appropriate'' in this clause means in Wales in respect of the effect on any service, such persons as the National Assembly for Wales shall specify.'.

This is neither a drafting nor a probing amendment. It is a very serious amendment. It seeks to make clear the consequence of the Government's intervention in the budget-making process of a local education authority. The Government have rightly proposed in new section 45B(4) that a notice must be made of the Secretary of State's reasons for amending the budget of a local education authority. But a local education authority does not operate in isolation, and neither does a local authority when it sets the budget for education.

As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West implied earlier, the consequence of a change to a local education authority's budget is a change to the budget of the rest of the services provided by that local authority. The two proposed new subsections enable—indeed, require—appropriate Secretaries of State to make statements about the consequences of the inevitable reduction of the budgets that are provided for their services. If the education budget goes up, another budget must go down, and the amendment requires that the appropriate Secretary of State make a statement on the consequences for their budget.

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

The hon. Gentleman's statement about the increase in the education budget having the inevitable consequence of other budgets going down is not necessarily correct. If capping were abolished, it would be possible to sustain other budgets.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I shall have to think about that intervention. Judging by the impression on the Minister's face, he will have to think about it too. Whether or not the consequences will be as I have described, the fact is that such action will have consequences. I accept that the Minister has a particular interest in the education budgets of a local authority, but I am concerned about all its budgets. As for the example of the social services budget, many local authorities face considerable pressure on their social services budgets this year. Indeed, the party to which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is affiliated complained just the other day that local authorities were setting their social services budgets so low that voluntary organisations were having to subsidise the cost of elderly people in residential homes. My local authority, which is run in the main by the Liberal Democrats, is one of those authorities, but I shall pass quickly over that matter as

I can see that it embarrasses him. [Interruption.] It will certainly be in another leaflet.

I want the Secretary of State for Health to be required to go on the record and say that he is satisfied that the consequences of the Secretary of State for Education and Skill's intervention will not be to make the provision of social services significantly worse. In many cases, that is the hard choice that county councils face when it comes to decisions about budget setting. It would be unfair for one Secretary of State to set out reasons why matters will be wonderful for schools, without other Secretaries of State being required to say—if they think it true—that such matters will be wonderful for elderly people in residential homes.

I have also defined the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions as being responsible for other services and I have left a catch-all provision under proposed paragraph (c) because I cannot think of them all. Another important area concerns the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs being the coastal protection authority. In some local authorities, a large amount must be spent—suddenly, in some years—on coastal protection. In the early part of this financial year, two significant cliff falls in my area had significant consequences for the local authority's revenue expenditure. In one case, it required the diversion of an A-class road.

I have explained why I tabled the amendment and I hope that the Minister will consider it sensible and in accordance with transparency and joined-up government. I hope that he will support it.

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

As an affiliated member of the Liberal Democrats—I do not know whether that is a promotion or a demotion—I look forward to the latest out-of-touch leaflet from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, however, because the kernel of his argument showed that he has spotted a genuine issue that the Minister has not recognised. I referred to it on Second Reading and it concerns the comments that I have made, perhaps too flippantly, about the bypassing of local authorities under the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman's amendment did not include reference to the Home Secretary's role in the police. Although Mr. Campbell has not briefed me fully, I understand that one major stumbling block in Cabinet was that when the former Secretary of State wanted a ring-fenced budget for education—to take it out of what was the Deputy Prime Minister's Department and run it all from Sanctuary house—the then Home Secretary said that he wanted to do the same for the police. Indeed, other Department heads would be able to say that they needed a ring-fenced budget for their Departments too.

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

Can the hon. Gentleman enlighten us on whether the current Home Secretary shares his predecessor's view on the subject?

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

I must confess that the current Home Secretary and I do not speak to each other regularly, as our paths have gone different ways, although we

meet occasionally on the train coming down to London.

It would be an important change if education budgets were ring-fenced and the Secretary of State had statutory powers to say that if a local authority did not spend what the Government said it should spend, they would determine the budget for it. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West noted that about 55 to 60 per cent. of a local authority's budget is spent on education. To remove that would leave a huge hole in local authority responsibilities and, if that were then applied to the police, fire and other services, we would have to question the point of having a local authority at all.

One Government objective in coming into power was to have joined-up thinking. There was the wonderful recognition by the now Home Secretary that education cannot be treated in isolation from other services. When the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and I visited the United States, we saw the wonderful work that was going on in North Carolina with the equivalent of sure start. There was wonderful joined-up thinking which recognised that education depends on quality housing, employment and other infrastructures. Once that is stripped apart and Departments compete for ring-fenced budgets, those opportunities are lost. Although I am sure that the amendment is probing—

Mr Chris Grayling (Epsom & Ewell, Conservative)

My hon. Friend said that it was not.

Mr Phil Willis (Harrogate & Knaresborough, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman is intelligent enough to know that the amendment is incomplete as it stands. However, he has raised an important issue, and it will be interesting to see how the Minister responds.

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

Local authorities will have the opportunity to object to a minimum budget, if one is set. That is set out in new section 45C(1). If they object, the Bill will also allow them to set out the impact on other services that they run as part of the process, so the amendment would not be necessary to gather information on the impact on other services.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight may be concerned about consultation with other Ministers. I can reassure him completely that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills would certainly consult colleagues with an interest in other local services before setting a minimum budget for an authority's schools. The Committee will know that the current Home Secretary is a strong supporter of the measure and worked hard to achieve it.

I accept that the topic is a matter for debate and that different people can take different views. The fact that the measure is in the Bill reflects this Government's view that raising standards in education is right at the top of our list of priorities. We need to ensure that the substantial increases in education spending that we will make this year, next year and the year after reach their target and are delivered to schools. Many people will feel that other things are more important and that that priority should not be assigned to education, but it is our clear

view that education should be at the top of our list of priorities.

Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham & Sale West, Conservative)

The Minister says that this shows the priorities that the Government attach to education, which is welcome, although the fact that he has also said that this is a power that he would envisage using extremely infrequently casts some doubt on his claim. Can he give an absolute assurance that there is no possibility that similar powers will be taken in future legislation, during this Parliament by other departmental Ministers, and that there will be no comparable ring fencing for police budgets, transport budgets or other local authority matters?

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

There are no proposals to introduce powers along these lines in any other areas. We would not want to restrict local decision-making abilities further. That reflects the Prime Minister's clear statement before he become Prime Minister that our top three priorities were ''education, education, education''. That is reflected in the clause. The Bill already provides that the Secretary of State must take account of all relevant circumstances before deciding to exercise the power to set a minimum level for the schools budget. There is no doubt that the effect on other services is a relevant consideration. That will certainly need to be taken into account. If there is any doubt about that, I am happy to place that assurance on the record. That may be helpful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

The Minister said the Secretary of State would consult other Ministers. He amplified the fact that the views of other Ministers will be relevant in determining the decision that the Secretary of State eventually reaches. He did not say, however, that the Secretary of State would ensure that the views of other Ministers were reported and made clear to the local authority at that time. Is that the case?

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

No, I would not introduce a system whereby the views of many different Ministers would be published. That would be an unusual arrangement. Those concerns would certainly be taken into account, as would the local authority's concerns about the impact on its other services. I hope that the Committee will take the view that the amendment does not help and that the way that the clause currently sets out the proposal is right.

Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight, Conservative)

I am afraid that the Minister has made it clear that he is not willing for there to be transparency. There may be joined-up government, but it would be under a veil. Frankly joined-up government under a veil is of no help to local authorities going through the difficult process of setting their budgets. Time after time, local authorities are told that there is enough money because the revenue support grant, or whatever, ensures that enough money comes through. That is not widely believed by local authorities.

If the Secretary of State believes that he is setting a reasonable budget, that is one thing, but convincing the members of the local authority of that is a different matter. Effectively, local authority members escape responsibility. I emphasise that because it is something with which I am terribly familiar in my local authority.

The tendency to blame the Government for everything that goes wrong is widespread, but occurs particularly in local authorities led by the party that is not in the habit of being in government.

I do not want my local authority or others to be able to say, ''We know that your elderly grandparents are suffering a total lack of domiciliary care and that your elderly parents are being thrown out of residential homes, but it is the fault of the wicked Government. It is not our fault, but theirs.''

We want the Secretary of State for Health to be able to say in public, hand on heart, that there is enough money—

It being Seven 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 Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. We had the opportunity to discuss clause 40, although we have not concluded our discussions. We have not had the opportunity to discuss clauses 41 and 42, to which amendments have been tabled. It would be logical to be able to vote

against clauses 41, 42 and even 43, as we have not even considered them. We would like to take those clauses separately, if that is convenient for you.

Mr Win Griffiths (Bridgend, Labour)

Unfortunately, under the programme resolution, hon. Members cannot vote separately on the clauses that are left. They must be considered under one Question.

Question put, That clause 40, as amended, and clauses 41 to 43 stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 6.