Clause 6
Education and Inspections Bill
Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 185, in clause 6, page 4, line 13, leave out ‘adequate' and insert ‘such'.
No. 184, in clause 6, page 4, line 14, at end insert
‘as may be sufficient according to their needs'.
No. 149, in clause 6, page 4, line 15, after ‘may', insert
‘enter into partnerships with other public, private or voluntary organisations in order to'.
No. 236, in clause 6, page 4, line 18, after ‘centres,', insert ‘field centres,'.
No. 64, in clause 6, page 4, line 29, after ‘provision', insert ‘or commissioning'.
No. 150, in clause 6, page 5, line 30, at end insert—
‘(d) a local authority must have regard to the access requirements of qualifying young persons with a disability.'.
No. 23, in clause 6, page 6, line 27, at end add—
‘(3) Provision under this section shall be restricted to that which can be funded by the revenue support grant separately identified but not specifically allocated or ring-fenced.'.
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
I shall continue from the point at which we were interrupted.
I was referring to a report last year by the Select Committee on Education and Skills that I hoped would be a turning pointing in the debate on the importance of education outside of the classroom. Certain things must be in place if we are going to strengthen and diversify the extra-curricular activities that I think were much stronger in years past. The functions of local authorities and their capacities to provide the facilities listed under proposed new sections 507A and 507B make an important contribution.
There is a link between the importance of physical activity—sport, physical education, Outward Bound expeditions such as hill climbing, and the great range of physical activities in which young people can get involved—and the wider concerns about children’s health. There is an important section in the Bill on health and diet, but it seems to me that that and the matter before us must be considered together as part of a coherent approach to raising standards of health and physical well-being among young people.
Finally, I have a slight reservation about clause 6 that it is important to flag up. The clause focuses on recreation and physical activity, but does not refer specifically to cultural activities and the role of dance, drama and music as important aspects of the wider out-of-school curriculum. I shall draw attention to the success of the creative partnership scheme that the Government initiated in recent years, and from which 36 local authorities—I think—can now benefit. The scheme is directed particularly at parts of the country and schools in which there is not a strong tradition of cultural activity; it enables schools to embark on a range of artistic, cultural and musical activities and to open up areas of experience that children might have not enjoyed previously—visits to theatres and concerts and from theatre groups, poets, writers and artists in residence. That is an excellent activities programme, and I hope that in due course it might extend the principles that underlie the creative partnership scheme to all local authorities and schools in the country. With that I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the issues that I have raised.
Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)
I shall speak to amendments Nos. 149 and 64 together and then amendment No. 150.
Amendments Nos. 149 and 64 make the point that local education authorities do not necessarily have to provide all the positive leisure services themselves. In some cases, authorities might deliver efficiency and choice—that most important of words that we have devoted so many of our hours to discussing—more effectively by commissioning those services from the private or voluntary sectors. It is important to place that on the record because, despite extensive rhetoric about dividing the commissioner and provider roles between local education authorities and schools, the implication appears to be that, although local education authorities should not provide schools, they should provide leisure facilities. We are merely probing the Government on that matter to get some points put on the record.
I can think of many examples in boroughs of services being bought in for one reason or another, such as the buying in of swimming facilities from local leisure services. I can think of many other instances in which youth facility services might be bought in from the voluntary sector. That often works extremely well—indeed, it might work better than if those services were provided directly by the local education authority.
Amendment No. 150 is intended to ensure that positive leisure-time activities are accessible to disabled young people. The amendment is supported by Mencap, which tells me that eight out of 10 young people with a learning disability do not attend any after-school club, that seven out of 10 children or young people with a disability were made to feel uncomfortable at their local leisure service, and that only one in five after-school clubs have any young person with a disability attending.
What do we mean when we talk about accessibility? We mean accessibility to the building, but we mean much more than that. The amendment is important because it is not simply about ensuring that there is adequate wheelchair access; it might also be about ensuring that there is appropriate signage or symbols so that disabled people know where everything is. For example, if they have a learning disability, it might be important to have signage for certain rooms, toilets or specific activities.
The amendment would also ensure that there was a safe environment for young people with a learning disability. Such young people are particularly vulnerable to bullying, for example, which often prevents them from taking part in after-school activities. The amendment would ensure that those young people were given the support that they needed, from their staff or their peer group, to access all the activities that take place. We have a concern that if that is not clearly stated in the Bill, local education authorities might provide or commission leisure activities that are suitable for the majority of young people in the area, rather than make sure that all those facilities are accessible for young people with a disability.
The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) made interesting wider points, particularly about the need to make sure that we benefit from the opportunities the Olympics provide. That is dear to my own heart, as I come from the borough where Wembley stadium is located—if it ever gets finished. It might have many opportunities to provide sporting facilities and to ensure that there is wider accessibility for young people in the area. The hon. Gentleman made good points about the role that sport can play in giving young people more opportunities to take part in sporting activities, and thereby in driving down petty crime. I am very supportive of the sentiments he expresses.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
I am very sympathetic to the hon. Lady’s amendments. I particularly welcome her comments regarding leisure facilities for those with special needs, and her point that local authorities should play a commissioning role and enter into partnerships with other public and private or voluntary organisations. She is right about that.
I am also sympathetic to the points made by the hon. Member for Bury, North. He is right to say that in recent years there has been a rise in unpleasant and antisocial behaviour. It is of concern that that continues to rise. He is also right in saying that there is a link between that and the lack of things for some young people to do. However, I suspect that there are also deeper reasons than that.
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of the proportion of schools that achieve the Government target of two hours of sport per week. It would be interesting to hear the Government’s response to that point about the minimum level of sport in schools. I would also like to hear their response on what proportion of young people learn to swim by the age of 11; the hon. Gentleman raised that, too.
There is no doubt that the objective of clause 6 is laudable and correct. It ensures that local authorities secure access for young people to leisure and recreational facilities and to other activities in their area. One of the persistent complaints of young people and their parents is that there are insufficient places that are both safe and sheltered where young people can go and meet their friends and socialise.
One reason why young people are often found congregating around bus shelters or on street corners is that they do not have more suitable places to meet one another. That is why we support many of the objectives of the “Youth Matters” Green Paper. It is also why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition announced his proposal last August for a youth community action programme. Under the programme, every school leaver would be able, if they wished, to do three to four months of voluntary work in the community. As he pointed out, there is strong support for the vision of building something that gives all young people in our country the right to a shared experience that will help prepare them for their responsibilities as adult citizens.
We are behind the clause 6 initiative and the duties that it will introduce. On centralisation, though, the Minister should take care when lobbing stones from her glass house. Paragraph 4.10 of the regulatory impact assessment says:
“Although guidance is useful in explaining the required changes, guidance alone will not receive sufficient local emphasis to achieve the changes required. The legislation contains specific requirements which should not be considered as purely advisory—as implied by non-statutory guidance.”
However, when one reads clause 6 without the advantage of reading simultaneously the Government’s press release of 8 March on the £115 million budget provided through the youth opportunities fund, it appears that a sizeable new duty is being imposed on local authorities without any funding to back it up. The purpose of amendment No. 23 is to ensure that clause 6 is interpreted so that the duties it imposes will not extend beyond the funding from central Government. Otherwise, the funds will have to be obtained either from hefty further increases in council tax or from the reduction of services in other areas. I searched the regulatory impact assessment in vain for an estimate of the costs involved in fulfilling the new duty, other than £2 million to fund publicity for activities.
The statement of policy on the guidance that the Secretary of State will issue under the clause in due course is a little more helpful. For example, paragraph 7 explains that a section of the guidance
“will explain that the duty applies to securing access to sufficient provision for young people in the area rather than securing provision in the area.”
However, the only real hint of the financial consequences of the duty is in paragraph 17, which says:
“The guidance will state that where current provision is failing to meet needs, the authority should re-shape its own provision, commissioning services as appropriate, and work with partner agencies to help them re-shape services as appropriate.”
It goes on to say in paragraph 18 that
“the guidance will explain that the provision available in the local area will be provided by a variety of organisations and that while the duty does require the authority to ensure that sufficient provision exists, the role of the authority in securing sufficient provision is broader than simply providing direct services. Increasingly we expect the authority to act as commissioner and facilitator of services rather than as provider.”
I think that that supports the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather).
Paragraph 22 of the statement of policy, however, says:
“The guidance will explain that in acting upon this legislative requirement, the authority will wish to consider the commissioning of services alongside other measures to secure alternative provision. It will suggest that these other measures include the provision of assistance, financial or otherwise, for alternative providers.”
So there appear to be some financial obligations that will go beyond the £115 million in funding through the youth opportunities fund.
The amendments are probing amendments so that the Ministers can clarify their position on the funding of the duties. While they are clarifying that point, will they also say something about the youth opportunity card? The clause does not refer to it, despite the fact that it is a major feature of the Green Paper and of the Government’s policy, particularly following the announcement of a pilot scheme in 10 areas during the next two years. Can they confirm that it is because the scheme is only being piloted that legislation for the card is not included in the Bill, or that it is not necessary to introduce primary legislation for the card if it is decided that the pilot is a success and the Government wish to roll it out nationally?
We welcome the clause and we welcome the provision of recreational facilities for young people. That is one of the many reasons why we decided to support the Bill. However, some clarification of the funding issues would be helpful.
Angela Smith (PPS (Yvette Cooper, Minister of State), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Sheffield, Hillsborough, Labour)
I begin by referring to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, who pointed to the importance of providing young people with things to do and places to go as one means of tackling boredom and antisocial behaviour among that group. It is important to remember that providing things to do and places to go is not just about tackling the minority who cause problems for the rest of us. Self-esteem and the development of team-working and social skills are also good reasons for providing those facilities for young people. The kinds of activities we are talking about are good for preparing young people for employment in later life. For those reasons alone, they ought to be supported.
The importance of working with a range of partners in developing the provision was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brent, East. I look forward to the Minister’s response, because I feel passionately that it is not the job of local authorities to provide all the services that are of relevance to young people. The voluntary sector, in particular, is much better placed in many ways to provide those facilities; indeed, it is already doing so on a significant scale. In my city, we have many sports clubs working right across the local authority boundary. Let us not forget the usual groups, well established in this country, such as the Guides, the Scouts and the Woodcraft Folk, which was always the great rival to the former—and still is in many ways—in the city of Sheffield. It provides a significant choice for young people. Then there is the Duke of Edinburgh award, which is now made available to almost all school children aged 14 and over in Sheffield; I think that there is only one secondary school there that fails to provide it. The Duke of Edinburgh award is in itself valuable and should be made available to every young person in the country; it deserves our support. There are also all the examples of the voluntary sector and ordinary community groups putting on sports activities; there are football, hockey and ice-hockey clubs and all the rest of it. For all those reasons we must resist the temptation to think that the duty on the local authority to provide is a duty on the local authority to administer the activities itself. It is really important that local authorities work in partnership.
In my city, there are great traditions relating to the Peak district, our greatest natural resource. It is important to remember that every young person deserves the opportunity to experience that resource—to be given the chance to indulge in rock-climbing and other activities that, for many young people, are just pipe dreams and are not made real.
I hope that the Minister will resist the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on the grounds that whether or not a local authority agrees on funding for extra facilities and services for young people is a matter for local discretion. A local authority may decide that there ought to be more investment in the young people of an area, and I do not think that central Government have the right to restrict local authorities which make that choice.
Also, much of the complementary funding required to meet the terms of the duty on the local authority is already being provided in many ways by activities that are laid on by the voluntary sector and through small contributions from parents towards those activities. Let us not forget that that infrastructure is already in place. The funding that the voluntary sector can tap into means that the duty should not be funded just by local authorities. A range of funding opportunities is available and the packages that will enable the duty to be fulfilled can be put together—indeed, they have been put together by local authorities for many years.
Amendment No. 236 is simple: it would insert the words “field centres”. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendment or at least come back to it on Report and Third Reading. Learning about the environment in which they live is surely an important part of every young person’s experience. The links to citizenship are strong—a young adult who learns to appreciate his or her environment, the importance of biodiversity and the wonders of nature will surely be much better equipped to make a civilised contribution to society.
The hon. Member for Brent, East said that local authorities should be commissioners of services, and this is one area of provision in which they should be. Many schools and colleges have already experimented with the concept of the outdoor classroom. They have tried to develop their own field centres; indeed, one of the primary special schools in Sheffield has developed a classroom for the future, available to all children in the city, that exploits the natural environment and develops environmental science study via the great pond just outside the school boundary. All that is great, but it does not go far enough. Only local authorities can develop the field centres that we are talking about on a scale that would enable all young people in a city to learn something significant and worth while about the environment and biodiversity and how to respect the natural environment.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
Is the hon. Lady saying that only local authorities can develop ponds, school farms and external Outward Bound-type activities from which children can benefit? Does she not think that the independent sector could do that as well?
Angela Smith (PPS (Yvette Cooper, Minister of State), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Sheffield, Hillsborough, Labour)
I am surprised at the hon. Lady’s comments. I was going to say that schools in Sheffield have already developed such provision, but I am talking about field centres on a much larger scale. Local authorities could commission, organise and develop such centres, but that does not mean that they would have to run them; I am sure that voluntary organisations such as the RSPB would be only too willing to do that. However, the onus and the responsibility for developing and possibly putting in the initial funding for their development should lie with the local authority.
We need more field centres and other such provision to ensure that the experience available to our young people is as rounded and broad as possible. I congratulate the Under-Secretary on clause 6, which represents a wonderful commitment. I am delighted that we are placing a duty on local authorities to develop such provisions. In my last year as cabinet member for education, I worked really hard to ensure that my local authority implemented such provision on a comprehensive scale, drawing in a partnership of voluntary sector bodies, sports clubs and so on. The Government now say that local authorities do not have the choice but have the duty to do that. I welcome that duty.
As I said, I hope the Under-Secretary will take on board the points about field centres and the importance of the outdoor classroom and of fulfilling the commitment that we made at the last general election to delivering on that point.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham, Labour)
I want to speak briefly to amendments Nos. 183 to 185. I support many of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North. I, too, congratulate Ministers on the inclusion of this important clause. It has not had adequate praise and its potential has not been fully recognised. It builds in an important way on the “Youth Matters” agenda.
In my constituency, we have undertaken a wide-ranging consultation exercise with young people, based on that agenda. Two facts that came out of it were that young people wanted a wider range of services to be made available to them and that they wanted to be actively involved in the development of those services. Therefore, it is important that the clause should cover the inclusion of young people in the development of their services.
We are also lucky to be piloting the youth opportunity card in my constituency. A couple of weeks ago, I met a group of young people and their representatives. They were really interested in this part of the Bill and very pleased that the Government are making it statutory a duty on local authorities to provide a range of services for them and with them.
I acknowledge and support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North about the importance of giving young people facilities to keep them from engaging in antisocial behaviour and to help them to develop. However, we should be careful that we do not concentrate merely on preventing antisocial behaviour. We want to encourage all young people to be good and active citizens. If we are to do that, we have to invest in them, and that means providing services for them; that is critical to their social and cultural development.
In conclusion, I welcome the measure. I hope that local authorities will take it on board wholeheartedly and will come up with exciting provision for young people across a range of services.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield, Labour)
I echo the comments made on this clause by colleagues from all parties and will speak specifically to amendment No. 236. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) said, it is impossible to overstate the importance of the fact that the clause places an obligation on local authorities, for the first time ever, to provide something for young people and to consult with the users—the young people themselves. Now, instead of having things done to them, young people will see things being done with them. That is key in dealing with teenagers—anybody with teenage children will testify to that. Fortunately, I have a few years to wait before the hormones hit my household.
That is important, and it links to the national youth voluntary service that was announced in the Budget, in respect of which public and private funding will be used to provide models of active citizenship for young people. It is an exciting time to be a teenager, with the youth opportunities fund in place and so many different provisions being made. We should avoid the patchwork approach that has been taken in the past, which has meant that some local authorities have provided youth services and others have chosen not to, resulting in unequal provision across the country.
On the field centres provision, I should like to hear how the Under-Secretary sees the manifesto for education outside the classroom developing. I know that there has been consultation on it; perhaps he can lift the veil on what he might promise us. We cannot overstate the importance of out-of-classroom learning in developing the creativity of young people. Nordic countries are developing forest classrooms, in which young people are educated almost wholly out of doors, weather permitting, and I have a friend in Dorset who runs a nursery with a forest classroom. I shall talk to Ministers about that afterwards. The children in such classes have an incredibly rich learning experience.
Those in the forefront of educational thinking are beginning to see how classroom learning can interact with the real world. It improves motivation, nurtures social skills and creates active and politically engaged young citizens, as well as healthy ones. I am sure that when we come to the clauses on school food and tackling obesity, there will be amendments to reinforce that approach. It can certainly be an inspirational way of giving children a mentally and physically healthy start in life.
I would just like to share with the Committee the experiences of Sandal Magna in my constituency. As far as I am aware, it is the first school in the country to have won a green flag for its award-winning work with out-of-classroom learning. It started by going for healthy school status but then realised that through the development of its wildlife garden and whole school environmental policy it could teach children all about the best ways of looking after the environment. I visited the school earlier this year. A teacher told me that it can be slightly annoying because sometimes staff can be sitting marking work in the afternoon and children will come in and say, “Miss, are you sure you need the light on?”. They switch the lights off and the teachers find themselves in the dark.
We could all feed an over-zealous approach to energy efficiency into our office environments. Those people are working from a Victorian school building, which, thankfully, is about to be totally redeveloped by a £2 million building programme. The experience of the healthy school status and the environmental school scheme is even feeding into the project for the new school. People are thinking about how they can incorporate the outdoor learning environment into the new school, how the community, which is a very disadvantaged one, can be encouraged to come into the school, and how their science lessons can involve the wildlife area and things such as that.
Finally on clause 6, we could be witnessing a flourishing of some of the more traditional youth organisations. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) about the Duke of Edinburgh scheme and Outward Bound. Sadly, however, the Youth Hostels Association has been in almost terminal decline for many years. Some of its hostels have had to be shut down because people now want en suite bathrooms and the like. There is something character building about being on Kinder Scout in the middle of a snowstorm, with not much electricity, and then staying in a youth hostel that could encourage adults and young people to count their blessings when they return home.
Jonathan R Shaw (PPS (Rt Hon Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State), Department for Education and Skills; Chatham and Aylesford, Labour)
Would we all have to share?
Mary Creagh (Wakefield, Labour)
I make no comments about sharing with my hon. Friends.
Situations such as those I mentioned are character building. I have been saddened by the decline in youth hostelling and the lack of independence of young people; they do not put their backpacks on and go climbing in the Peak district any more. There is a timidity about the outdoors. Engaging with the outdoors is about young people and children engaging with themselves and finding out about their own limits and boundaries. I welcome this landmark clause in the development of a young persons policy in this country.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
Two or three things have emerged during the discussion of this group of amendments that deserve amplification, not least because the hon. Member for Bury, North deserves our thanks for drawing the Committee’s attention to the important area of school sport. He highlighted several questions that he wants the Under-Secretary to answer and focused particularly on the amount of time that is devoted to school sport in the curriculum.
I shall add to those questions—helpfully, I am sure the Under-Secretary will agree—by asking him to talk about the type of participation in sport. This is not just about the amount of time devoted to sport; it is about its quality and the nature of what children are involved in. It will be interesting to hear whether he can offer any facts on that. If he cannot do so at the moment, he might want to follow the matter up when he has had a chance to do some research.
I am also interested to know what the level of engagement between schools is, and particularly whether they play matches against other local schools and are involved in soccer, cricket or another sport. I am often told that it is difficult to get enough schools to participate in a given locality to make such things possible. I would therefore be interested in the Minister’s perspective on the interaction between schools regarding competitive sport.
I would also like to know how much sport takes place in schools, and to what extent schools take advantage of other facilities. Swimming, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bury, North, is a good example of that. In most cases—certainly in primary schools—swimming will be provided by access to the local public baths. Secondary schools might have their own swimming facilities, but that is more of a rarity than the norm. The ability of schools to access relevant local resources conveniently, practically and affordably is critical to achieving the objectives set out by the hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his sensible comments.
Such information should be given to the Committee so that we can consider the matter more carefully. By the time it comes to us, we might already have had to make a decision on this amendment, but I am sure that we will return to these matters in some form later. We will go on to discuss some aspects of school life, what motivates people and the need to encourage them to engage in school life. Sport plays an important role in all of that, not just because it is about fitness, but because it is frequently a vehicle for endeavour and achievement, not least among those young people who are not very academic.
We must lift our sights beyond the narrow understanding of education as being wholly academic. We on the Committee know that that is not so. I know that the Under-Secretary feels as strongly as I do on this, because I have discussed it with him. We need to emphasise aspects of education that allow children to engage in different experiences, to fulfil all kinds of potential, and to acquire and have the opportunity to use different skills. Sport plays an important part in that, as well as providing opportunities to improve physical fitness and prowess.
I shall elaborate slightly on my earlier point about public open space, because there seem to be contradictory notions emanating from the Government—I did a bit of research on that. While the Committee was adjourned, I had tea at the Savoy. It was a most splendid affair, but that did not prevent me from doing a little research on the subject that we discussed this morning. It is important to be able to multi-task in this modern world, and while simultaneously researching and dining I was able to dig out some information that I hope will be as efficacious as my tea was.
The Government have argued that they are protecting the sale of school playing fields—in answer to a parliamentary question in 2001, they suggested that they have introduced a number of new initiatives to fulfil their commitment to avoid the loss of playing fields—while also arguing that the sale of school playing fields has provided resources to invest in sporting facilities, as the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said in response to a subsequent parliamentary question. So the Government argue both that they are trying to stop playing fields from being sold and that their sale is helpful because it provides resources to invest in local community sport. I want the Government to make their view on this clear. It is important that we understand that access to open space—ideally in the school itself, but, as my example regarding swimming shows, that is not always practical—is vital if we are to achieve the objectives set out by the hon. Member for Bury, North.
This issue is about both timetabling and resources. Children need access to open space to use the energy that they have so much of. I have something to say about the planning system in that respect. Over lunch I was also able to read a booklet that I first read some time ago, published by Policy Exchange and called “Bigger Better Faster More: Why some countries plan better than others”. It draws a comparison between the planning system in the United Kingdom and that in other European countries, particularly Germany and Switzerland, and paints a graphic picture of how green space in conurbations differs in different countries as a result of their planning systems. I do not want to digress too far. You will not allow me to do so, Mr. Chope, and I see your owl-like gaze, which may anticipate an owl-like swoop on me if I do not draw my remarks to order. However, it is important to say that, increasingly, in some of those other countries green space and open space is more available than in some of our conurbations.
That has a direct impact on children’s activities in school time—because of the need to gain access to spaces beyond the school gate—and in leisure time. Much sporting activity takes place, of course, outside school. Once we have stimulated children to get involved in school sport, as we all want them to, it is vital that they should have other avenues by which to pursue those interests. My five-year-old son is about to start junior cricket in the next few weeks with the local club in our village. We are lucky enough to have a cricket ground at the bottom of our garden. It does not belong to me, I am sad to say, but it is easily accessible as a result of being there.
That opportunity is provided by the sort of bottom-up, community-oriented activity that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough talked about. I wholly agree with her—to turn my attention to the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats—that the solutions to the issues and challenges of civil society are often best provided by the voluntary sector. Communities seem to me to be natural, organic things—the consequence of fellowship born of shared interest. It is in people-sized institutions that much of the best work of civil renewal takes place. It is of course important that local authorities should play their part in facilitating and encouraging that, and removing obstacles to such civil renewal, but it is often the bottom-up approach that the hon. Lady described so well that is likely to provide solutions to some of the problems besetting our communities.
I am sympathetic to the hon. Lady’s view that what we are considering is a partnership between such voluntary local effort and what the Government and local government can do. Sometimes the Government should step forward and at other times it should step back so that others can step forward. She is right about that, and I should be interested to hear the Liberal Democrat response to her helpful critique of their perspective on those matters.
Our useful debate has illustrated what I hope will become a theme in our considerations in coming days and weeks—that the best education has the spirit of co-operation, as well as competition, at its heart. There is no better example of how to do both things simultaneously than sport. Sport is a fine example of how children can be taught those important, lifelong lessons. My remarks about public open space were really about situations in which private interest is not enough to bring about the kind of healthy, strong and vibrant communities, with active, participating citizens, that we all want as we move, beyond the Bill, into the future. What matters is what we share, because we are in this together, not out for ourselves. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bury, North tabled the amendments so that we could have a short debate with so many useful contributions.
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)
The hon. Member for Bury, North has done the Committee a service by drawing our attention to the difference between the words “sufficient” and “adequate”.
I have three questions for the Under-Secretary. Will a great deal change on the ground as a result of this excellent clause? Is there any possibility that the standard of sport in state schools will rise to that in the independent sector? As far as my children or anybody else’s are concerned, I have no angst about the state sector or the independent sector—I am neither for nor against—but it is quite obvious to us all that the standard of sports facilities at day schools and boarding schools in the independent sector is a great deal higher than at state schools. It is perhaps a question of resources, but it is also a question of will-power. My first question, therefore, is whether this excellent clause will make a difference, or is it just apple pie and motherhood?
Secondly, what will the clause do to reverse the catastrophic decline in the number of sports fields and the amount of team games played? Some of my children attend state schools, and I am conscious of the fact that although swimming, which the Committee has debated, is widely available, team games and other sports apparently do not exist during school hours. My boy often had to travel long distances and do extra-curricular activities to engage in any kind of team sport, be it rowing or anything else. Incidentally, he is now in a private school, so the whole thing is laid on, and he does games every afternoon, which he loves. Therefore, there is a difference. What will the clause do to reverse that catastrophic decline?
Lastly, which local authorities are not taking the steps set out in the clause? We would like to know. Presumably the provisions mean something and will make a difference, so the Under-Secretary, or rather those who advise him, must have a list of the local authorities that are not doing all the excellent stuff referred to in the clause. We surely have a right to know.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I asked the Under-Secretary to break down the figures for young people’s participation in sport. We need him to do that so that we can to get to the bottom of my hon. Friend’s point. It is not enough to say that young people are doing sport or physical education; it is important that we know what kind and what quality it is. Let me just tell my hon. Friend—
Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)
Order. I think that that is long enough for an intervention.
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)
That is a pity because my hon. Friend’s intervention was fuelled by gargantuan teas, lunches and much else. Of course, I cannot afford tea at the Savoy because I have all these children. Anyway, I think that I have made my point. Let us name and shame the local authorities that are not doing what is set out in the clause.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire, Conservative)
Let me mention the state school that my daughter attends. The average house price in the area is quite high and there are a lots of middle-class parents. The school partakes in an amazing array of sports. Indeed, my daughter amazed me last night when she asked where her swimming costume because she was doing synchronised swimming today, although it is debatable whether that is a sport. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that the clause should concentrate on areas where there are state schools, but where parents are not so affluent, motivated or energised? Similar schools in areas with motivated middle-class families and high average house prices would probably do quite well.
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)
I am sure that there must be something in that. Presumably, it cannot be a matter of resources. The Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but the same resources presumably go into a school whether it is in a deprived area or a middle-class area, so it cannot be a question of resources. Why are some schools underperforming? Is the problem the fact that the onus is put on the parents, some of whom simply cannot afford to encourage their children to partake in these extra-curricular activities? [Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) is pregnant with advice.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I want to finish my earlier intervention. We need to get the issue in perspective. Most people who represent England at international level are not public school boys and girls, are they? How many of our national soccer team or top athletes went to a private school? There is a lot of nonsense talked about these things. There are some good state schools doing some very good sport. We now need to ensure that all state schools do good sport.
Edward Leigh (Gainsborough, Conservative)
There may be a lot of truth in that. I suspect that it varies from sport to sport. It would be interesting to know where a lot of our Olympic medallists were educated—whether at state or private schools. Anyway, we await the Minister’s comments with interest.
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
As we debate the clauses dealing with young people, looking around the Committee I am remind of the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, who said:
“Beautiful young people are accidents of nature, but beautiful old people are works of art.”
We have both on this Committee, and hon. Members can decide which category they belong to.
Before addressing points made by Committee members, which have ranged fairly far and wide given the nature of the clause, I should like to take a moment to introduce the clause and explain its importance to young people and local communities. In essence, it will ensure that young people are able to access constructive things to do and places to go in their leisure time. We know—we have heard testimony about it this afternoon—that participation in constructive leisure activities, such as playing sport and joining groups and taking part in cultural activities, including art, music, drama, and all the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North and others, are vital. They offer young people lasting benefits, including, as my hon. Friend said, improved health, the chance to develop their skills, as the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, as well as personal confidence and social development.
The clause is so important because six out of 10 young people and 8 out of 10 parents believe that there are not enough of these activities in the area in which they live. For some young people, the result of such a lack of activity is not just the personal cost of missing out on voluntary learning opportunities: the absence of things to do and places to go also leads to boredom and, inevitably, to nuisance. Given the comments of Committee members, it is interesting to note that 70 per cent. of young people believe that a lack of provision leads to more youth crime. Young people’s opinions are supported by evidence that being involved in positive activities helps prevent teenagers from being drawn into antisocial behaviour and crime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North and the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said.
Andrew Gwynne (PPS (Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Minister of State), Home Office; Denton and Reddish, Labour)
Is it not also the case in respect of antisocial behaviour that people’s general tolerance levels have also changed? Whereas a few years ago people accepted children and young people playing ball games on grass verges outside houses, now they do not, and that raises the need to open up sports facilities to the general public outside school times.
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is interesting that in the British crime survey 49 per cent. of people in deprived areas identified teenagers hanging around on the street as a problem, reinforcing my hon. Friend’s point, which is that our attitudes have changed and work needs to be done.
Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)
To add to the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), the Football Association raised a particular concern about the rise in the number of “no ball games” signs in estates. That point was made by another hon. Member earlier. There needs to be far more consultation, when setting up estates, to ensure that there are defined areas where young people can play ball games, because the FA identified that as a particular problem in encouraging people to take part in football.
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
The hon. Lady is right. Indeed, the clause is partly about putting a duty on local authorities to consider the needs and provision locally and find ways to meet those needs. Perhaps local authorities might want to look at such things as the point that she has just made when considering the facilities available for young people.
I want to emphasise how young people and hon. Members think that engagement in such activities helps reduce antisocial behaviour. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham made the important point that it is also about positively engaging young people, not just to reduce their antisocial behaviour but to promote positive behaviour—I believe that active citizenship was mentioned earlier.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
Further to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the duty on local authorities, it is about ensuring adequate public space, as the hon. Member for Brent, East pointed out, but is it not also about the way we build houses and gardens? In our proper understanding of the need for more affordable housing, we are building a number of houses without gardens even when children are located in that area and would want to play in gardens. That is partly why children are spending less time engaged in the activities that he and I engaged in with our friends—in my case in the ‘60s and in his case earlier, I would guess.
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
I would not like to guess the sport that the hon. Gentleman participated in when he was at school—perhaps it was draughts or chess. We are ranging wide across the piece when we start to think about designing out crime when we develop houses, local estates and so on. In my former role as a Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, I did a great deal on the issue of creating communities that are cleaner, safer and greener, and I am pleased to say that there are huge extra resources, particularly in the most disadvantaged areas, to ensure that that is the case. In other words, communities that help in such a way are being designed. However, those points are not covered by clause 6 so I will not stray too far from the task before us.
Why do not many young people participate in the activities that we are describing? We know that young people experience a variety of barriers in accessing positive activities. Although sufficient provision is essential to participation, other factors such as a lack of information about what is available or the unsuitability of the provision are often the reasons behind young people’s non-participation.
We know that young people wish to do more. Some 19,000 young people responded to the Department’s recent consultation on the Green Paper, “Youth Matters”, a huge response reflecting the importance that we place on the matter. Of those young respondents, 71 per cent. said that they would do up to four hours of activities, including sport, in their spare time each week if they had the opportunity. Those figures and the sheer volume of young people who responded to the consultation attest to the importance that young people, as well as members of the Committee, attach to the matter.
I was pleased to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham carried out her own consultation with young people. I dare say that other members of the Committee and Members of Parliament should follow her example and go out and talk to young people and listen to their views, so that they can play their part as MPs in responding to the needs of young people.
By giving strategic responsibility to local authorities to ensure that young people have access to sufficient provision, clause 6 will ensure that a single responsible body will review access and act as commissioner, facilitator and, where appropriate, provider to ensure that young people can benefit from participation in positive leisure time activities.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned the youth opportunities card; the clause is wide enough to embrace that. He is right to say that it is being piloted and that we will consider the outcomes of those pilots before we go forward. The legislation will allow the youth opportunities card to be delivered by local authorities if they wish to use that mechanism.
Annette Brooke (Children & the Family, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
I want to ask a question about the potential for local authorities to charge and perhaps swallow up the youth opportunities card. There are two references in the clause where the expense may be defrayed or financial assistance may be given, but they are imprecise. Will there be any guidance about not setting high prices that would take such worthy activities out of the range of many of our most deserving young people?
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
There will be guidance and, indeed, some illustrative descriptions of what the guidance will cover will include that. Lack of finance can be a barrier for some young people, particularly those from low-income families, so it is important that when a local authority conducts an assessment of the needs of young people and their access to activities, they take into account potential financial barriers. I shall say more about barriers when I come on to disability, but there are barriers of that kind and it is up to local authorities to ensure that financial barriers do not prevent young people from accessing the sort of facilities and recreational opportunities listed in the clause.
The clause ensures that young people are themselves central to the fulfilment of the new duty. It requires that local authorities establish young people’s views on the current provision of positive activities, their access to it, and the need for any additional activities and facilities. It also requires that authorities take into account young people’s views. Local authorities will need to consult young people and take into account their views on positive activities.
I emphasise that the legislation will be supported by the youth opportunities and youth capital funds that have been mentioned already, and which will be worth some £115 million over the next two years. Both funds will be youth led, support the engagement of young people in decision making, and be an important additional resource to help to achieve the intended outcomes of the new provisions. It is important that local authorities take into account young people’s views, which will be critical in ensuring that the provision made is of interest to and meets the needs of young people. In turn that will result in increased participation by young people.
To tackle the lack of information on existing provision the clause requires that local authorities publicise appropriate positive activities and facilities available locally to young people. Guidance issued under the clause, to which local authorities will need to have regard, will clarify how that can be achieved to greatest effect, and will address the information needs of specific groups such as disabled young people.
For too long, parents in this country have complained that their local area provides nothing for their kids to do. That is what I hear on doorsteps in my constituency, and I am sure that it is replicated across the country. Young people want things to do and local communities want young people to engage in positive activities. For those reasons I believe that the duty contained in the clause will be fulfilled with vigour at local level.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) raised an issue regarding sport. Will the clause make any difference? I believe that young people and local communities will demand that local authorities respond to their duty to secure access to such activities. That will be a major driver, led by young people and the communities themselves, in the delivery of those activities.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
The hon. Gentleman might be right to say that young people want things to do, but he will know that in the last 15 years almost half of the UK’s playing fields have disappeared. Many of our conurbations and cities are becoming increasingly grey. It is okay to say that young people have the will to do such things, but unless there is the opportunity they will not be able to fulfil that will.
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
Perhaps that will give me the opportunity to respond to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman and others have made about participation in sport and the availability of public playing fields, although I hope not to stray far from the clause.
The Government are firmly committed to competitive school sport. Learning competitive games such as football and hockey is compulsory at all key stages, and the percentage of young people taking part in competitive sport has been rising steadily year on year. We have introduced new measures to successfully promote participation in competitive sport. I have some figures for the hon. Gentleman. Competitive sports such as football, hockey and athletics remain popular and are offered by almost all schools. For example, 97 per cent. of schools offer football, 91 per cent. athletics, 85 per cent. cricket, 81 per cent. netball, 82 per cent. rugby, 74 per cent. hockey and 71 per cent. tennis. That is a high percentage of schools offering exactly the kind of competitive school sports to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned inter-school sporting competition. In partnerships that we developed in 2003-04 the level of participation has risen from 33 per cent. to 36 per cent. I am pleased to say that the figure is going up. In a typical week, a quarter of pupils in partnership schools are involved in inter-school competitive activities. That percentage has risen from 22 to 28 per cent., an increase of six percentage points. There has been a welcome growth in participation in competitive sport.
The subject of playing fields has come up on a number of occasions. I shall briefly mention some facts.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I want to be absolutely clear on the figures that the hon. Gentleman just offered us, because they are important in the terms established by the hon. Member for Bury, North. The Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that he is telling us that 28 per cent. of schools, up from 22 per cent., are involved in inter-school competitions. Is that right? He then gave us another figure of 36 per cent. I did not understand the difference between those two. Will he clarify it? Whatever the clarification, however, it seems to me—
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
The figures are for partnership schools in which participation has taken place. I was talking about pupils, not schools.
I should like to make it clear that the Government are investing some £978 million between 2003-04 and 2007-08 to deliver the PE, school sport and club links strategy, which aims to increase young people’s take-up of sporting opportunities. As for the figures on partnership school pupils taking part, the 2004-05 school sport survey found that 69 per cent. of pupils in partnership schools spent at least two hours in a typical week on high-quality PE and school sport. With the addition of the lottery funding that is enhancing school facilities, some £1.5 billion will have been invested in school sport during the five years up to 2008. By any standards, that is a remarkable achievement in promoting school sport.
Angela Smith (PPS (Yvette Cooper, Minister of State), Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; Sheffield, Hillsborough, Labour)
I wonder whether this is the right point to pay tribute to our right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, who has been instrumental in securing much of that investment, which will facilitate the implementation of the duties laid down in clause 6.
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight our right hon. Friend’s contribution. We can be proud not only of the new duty, which will improve facilities and access for young people, but of the wider opportunities for participation both in and out of school in a wide range of sporting and cultural activities.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
The Under-Secretary has been extremely clear about the kind of sports that young people are involved in—he gave us a comprehensive breakdown of figures for each sport that he listed—but I am still not quite clear about how many schools and how many pupils, in percentage terms, are involved in competitive sport. He has spoken about different percentages and different types of schools. Can we have a clear answer on how many schools are competing against one another, and what percentage of pupils is involved? If he cannot give me that clear answer, perhaps he could come back to me.
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
I shall try again. If this does not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, I will write to him.
I listed the percentage of schools offering each sport. I thought that that was a helpful contribution. In the context of the sporting partnerships that are being developed, I mentioned that 35 per cent. of pupils in those partnership schools were involved in some form of inter-school sporting competition. Well over a third are involved in some kind of sporting competition.
Questions have been asked about school playing fields. Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 delivered our commitment to ending the policy of forcing schools to sell off playing fields. Since then, all local authorities and governing bodies of maintained schools in England have needed the Secretary of State’s consent to dispose of a school playing field or any part of one. Since 2004, the assessment criteria have been strengthened so that the sale of a playing field is an absolute last resort. Local authorities must demonstrate that they have exhausted all other sources of funding. When possible, sale proceeds must be used to improve outdoor sports facilities, and any new sports facilities must be sustainable for at least 10 years. I am pleased to say that the number of applications for disposal has shown a steady decline since the Government introduced that policy. In 1998-99, there were 41 applications; by 2005-06 the number had fallen to 17, which demonstrates that we have made significant inroads into the legacy of a flawed policy That has made a real difference by ensuring that young people have the opportunities, and the necessary access when theyneed it.
Andrew Gwynne (PPS (Rt Hon Baroness Scotland of Asthal, Minister of State), Home Office; Denton and Reddish, Labour)
May I give my hon. Friend an example of best practice in my constituency in Labour-controlled Tameside? A major retail development was proposed in Denton town centre that involved the removal of a slice of the school playing field at Edgerton park arts college. Not only did the school secure financial compensation for the loss of the playing field, which it reinvested in a multipurpose floodlit sports pitch for the community, but it received replacement land attached to the playing field of exactly the same size as it lost. It was win-win for the school and the community.
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
That is an excellent example of a local authority delivering what we require: it delivered better facilities for young people rather than ignoring the opportunity to meet those needs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North and others mentioned swimming. I remind the Committee that swimming has always been a compulsory element of the PE national curriculum, and unless completed at key stage 1 swimming and water safety activities are statutory at key stage 2. I can tell the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—I know that he likes interesting facts—that in 2000 an Ofsted report on swimming at key stage 2 found that 83 per cent. of pupils could swim the 25 m standard. We think that the figure could still be improved. An advisory group was set up and a pilot programme was carried out. As a result of the success of that pilot, and with a positive consultation, we intend to implement a national programme, with £5.5 million being allocated to support what is known as a swimming charter between April 2006 and March 2008.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
Will the Minister confirm that 69 per cent. of pupils are spending two hours or more on high-quality PE and games, or did that figure relate to a special kind of school? If the latter, could he give the overall figure of the proportion who spend two hours on PE and games?
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
The figure that I read out is correct. The 2004-05 school sports survey said that 69 per cent.—the figure is up by 7 percentage points on the previous year—of pupils in partnership schools were spending at least two hours in a typical week on high-quality PE and school sport. As we are drifting into territory not covered by the clause, I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the other information that he has asked me to provide, if wehave it.
I turn to the amendments. Clause 6 contains two new sections applying only to England that are to be inserted into the Education Act 1996. Proposed new section 507A is a re-enactment of the existing section 508 of the 1996 Act in its application to children under the age of 13. Proposed new section 507B is a new provision that replaces the LEAs’ existing functions under section 508 of the 1996 Act with regard to young people over the age of 13. The two new sections deal with two age groups. It is important to note that the majority of the amendments would change new section 507A; they would therefore amend existing provisions. Local authorities already fulfil that duty; we are re-enacting it. The amendments would change that.
Amendments Nos. 183, 184 and 185 would amend the wording of the provision to require that local authorities secure “sufficient” rather than “adequate” facilities for children’s recreation and social and physical training. In the context of clause 6, we believe that “adequate” provides a more challenging duty. In order to secure “adequate” provision, local authorities would need to have regard to the quality as well as the quantity of its provision, but the amendments would risk communicating to local authorities that in fulfilling the provisions of new section 507A they need consider only the scale of provision without taking into account its quality. I do not think that that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North intends.
It is also worth noting that the new section is based on the provisions of section 508 of the 1996 Act, and that LEAs are already clear as to the meaning of “adequate” in that context because they have been fulfilling the duty for some time. In addition, existing section 508 will continue in respect of local authorities in Wales. Those authorities continue to be required to ensure that there are adequate facilities and so on. Any difference between the wording of section 508 and the new section 507A will create doubt as to the extent of the LEAs’ functions under these provisions.
It is not necessary to require that the duty be fulfilled “according to their needs”, as the amendment would do. As I have explained, the new section imposes a duty on LEAs to ensure that there are adequate facilities. LEAs are already under a duty to secure primary and secondary education for their areas that are appropriate to the needs of their pupils, so it would be inappropriate to impose an additional burden on them in respect of that aspect of their primary and secondary education provision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North made an important point, and I want to assure him that in fulfilling the duty, local authorities will have to consider the needs of the child population, and of specific groups of children. That will include the consideration that is given to recreation and social and physical training facilities as part of the analysis that is undertaken by local authorities and their partners in respect of children’s trusts, as set out in the children and young people’s plan. For the reasons that I have outlined, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 149 and 64 seek to enable authorities to form partnerships with other organisations to secure adequate facilities for children’s recreation and social and physical training. I appreciate the intentions behind the amendment, and I agree that local authorities should consider co-operating with other organisations in fulfilling the duty, but I do not think that the amendment is necessary. Subsection (2)(a) of new section 507A makes it clear that the local authority may
“assist the establishment, maintenance and management of”
provision, thereby supporting the actions of others as part of a partnership. In addition, subsection (3) requires local authorities to consider
“co-operating with any voluntary societies or bodies”
that provide or organise similar activities.
We have heard many examples of the excellent work done by local voluntary bodies and others in fulfilling those responsibilities. Local authorities already operate in a new environment, following the “Every Child Matters” reforms and the framework that was established by the Children Act 2004. Those require greater partnership working, and for local authorities to plan and commission with other bodies within local children’s trusts arrangements. I am pleased to say that that approach is now firmly embedded around the country, and it is supported by a joint planning and commissioning framework for children, young people and maternity services, set out by the Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health.
Within that framework, local authorities are developing a more strategic approach to planning and commissioning. That includes making sure that suppliers and providers are encouraged to develop innovative approaches to delivering services and achieving outcomes. Section 507A provides significant flexibility to local authorities in their approach to securing provision, and that includes their ability to enter into partnerships with other organisations, which we know can be successful. I hope that the hon. Member for Brent, East will not press the amendments, because they are unnecessary, although they have provided a helpful opportunity for us to welcome the contribution that voluntary organisations and others make towards the provision of services for young people.
Amendment No. 236 would include a specific reference to field centres as one of the facilities that authorities may establish, maintain or manage, or may assist others in establishing, maintaining or managing as part of their local provision. Committee members who were unaware of the benefits of field centres heard some of them articulated here this afternoon. They offer young people important opportunities to participate in outdoor education, often concentrating on the natural sciences, the physical sciences and environmental education. Depending on the centre, they might also offer activities aimed at personal and social development, such as outdoor pursuits.
In my previous life, I took many young people away on such trips, both as a teacher and as a youth worker. I am sure that other hon. Members have done the same. We all know the benefits that such activities provide, as the examples given by my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough demonstrate. I am also aware that there are many disaffected young people; that kind of learning provides opportunities that can help to re-engage them with mainstream education.
Not all the activities provided by field centres are likely to fall within the concept of recreational, social and physical training as identified in new section 507A, although in many cases they will. It would be reasonable for a local authority to use field centres to provide certain services as part of the fulfilment of its duty under subsection (1). However, the list of activities and facilities referred to in subsection (2)(a)(i) is indicative, not exclusive. We should not seek to name in subsection (2) all the excellent facilities that authorities may seek to provide or support. The subsection already provides local authorities with significant flexibility on the type of facility that could be employed in the fulfilment of the duty. For example, outdoor education centres could be used; the list of the types of centres that might be appropriate could go on and on.
The Department and a range of organisations are undertaking a wide range of work to ensure that all children and young people have a variety of high-quality learning opportunities away from their classrooms, but as part of their lessons. We aim to publish a manifesto for education outside the classroom that will seek to create a joint undertaking through which providers, voluntary organisations, youth groups, schools and local authorities will work together to make what are often unique experiences a reality for all children.
That manifesto is yet to be published, although a draft of its vision and aims is on the DFES website. The issue is subject to a lot of consultation at the moment. I am confident that the manifesto will communicate adequately the message that my hon. Friends seek to pass to local authorities—the message that field centres are important. The manifesto will also help field centres to work together more effectively to deliver improved services to schools and increase teachers’ confidence in taking children out of the classroom. I ask my hon. Friends to consider not pressing the amendment. It is necessary neither in the legal sense, nor, because of the work being done on the manifesto, as a means of communicating the importance of field centres.
I have been speaking about provision for children up to the age of 13; the amendments that I was discussing related to new section 507A. I now turn to new section 507B. As I said, it was first proposed in the Green Paper “Youth Matters”. We think it central to ensuring that young people have things to do and places to go to during their leisure time. I emphasise that positive activities include any leisure time activity connected to recreation or education that improves young people’s well-being. They include sport and cultural activities as well as youth work, which will be essential to the delivery of many of the positive activities in which we want young people to engage, and to empowering young people to access and influence the nature of the provision.
As we have been reminded, such activities are provided by a wide variety of bodies across the public, private and voluntary sectors. The duty under new section 507B reflects that. However, local authorities will be an important source of positive activities, both as providers and, increasingly, as commissioners of services. For example, a significant youth work contribution from the local authority will be central to the fulfilment of the new duty to secure young people access to sufficient positive leisure time activities. In fulfilling the new duty, local authorities will need to consider whether their current youth work contribution is appropriate, following consultation with local young people.
I turn to amendment No. 150, which concerns disabled young people. We are sympathetic to its intentions; it is vital that young people with disabilities should be able to access the positive leisure time activities that the clause seeks to ensure for all young people. It is also true that young people with disabilities often face additional barriers, and the clause has been written with such young people in mind.
Young people with disabilities are already included in the duty on securing access to sufficient positive leisure time activities. The authority will have to take into account its responsibilities under the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people. However, it is important to recognise that many other groups of young people could be mentioned in the Bill. They also face barriers to participation; they could be physical, cultural, social or—as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) mentioned—economic. We believe that local authorities should determine the relative needs of each group in their area, and also the actions they should take following local assessment and within the planning and commissioning process led by the Children’s Trust. Section 17 of the Children Act 2004 requires local authorities to work with other partners to produce a children and young people’s plan, and the need of disabled young people to access positive leisure time activities should be included in that plan.
I emphasise that proposed new section 507B(8)(a) requires the local authority to consult young people and to take their views into account. That consultation will inform the local authority’s planning. Statutory guidance issued under that new section will make clear the expectation that the local authority should consult and consider the needs of disabled young people. That is vital, and it will be stated in statutory guidance.
Finally on this point, subsection (9) of the proposed new section requires local authorities to
“publicise information about positive leisure-time activities, and facilities”
to young people. The provision of information on those activities is vital for young people with disabilities, who have additional information requirements. The National Youth Agency has advised the Department on how the requirement can best be fulfilled, and we will set out in guidance that the information requirements of disabled young people should be clearly addressed.
I hope that I have reassured Members that not only does the new duty include disabled young people, but that the accompanying statutory guidance will specifically address the needs of disabled young people. On that ground, I request that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division.
Amendment No. 23 raises important questions about funding, and how we expect local authorities to resource any actions they take in fulfilling the new duty. The clause places a duty to secure access to sufficient positive activities and facilities. Some of that provision will be supplied by the authority itself, but, as we have heard, much will be provided by others—for example, extended schools, voluntary sector bodies, or private providers.
Those organisations are not in receipt of the revenue support grant. Therefore, it is not meaningful for the legislation to require their provision to be funded by it. However, even setting aside that legal point and considering only the services provided by the local authority itself, the amendment still fails to offer sufficient flexibility to local authorities with regard to the various funding streams available to them. For example, it would preclude local authorities from making use of local area agreements funding, despite the fact that that contains some £50 million over the next two years that was previously ring-fenced for the “positive activities for young people” programme. It would also prevent local authorities from making use of funding streams that are explicitly designed to help them deliver this duty. I have mentioned the £115 million youth opportunity fund and the youth capital fund. Amendment No. 23 would negate the new power in the clause that allows local authorities to charge, as it would prevent local authorities from using money raised by such charges to offset the costs of provision.
The revenue support grant represents only 6 per cent. of the total external funding received by local authorities from central Government. If we were to restrict the scope of funding in this way, the amendment would require local authorities to severely cut back the provision of leisure time activities and facilities—which, I stress, are often shared by the wider community.
Finally, I remind Opposition Members that the funding restrictions proposed by their amendment would be fundamentally at odds with the increasing discretion accorded to local authorities to judge the best use of their finances, and to be judged according to the outcomes they achieve. Practically speaking, it is also impossible for authorities to identify how much revenue support grant they receive, as that forms an unspecified part of the larger formula grant. Authorities will not therefore know how much they could spend in the fulfilment of this duty. For all those reasons, the amendment is unhelpful, and I invite hon. Members not to press it.
I think I have covered most of the matters Members have raised, including a variety of points about sport, swimming and education outside the classroom, and issues to do with the youth opportunity card. This is an important clause that makes a significant contribution to the Bill and to the provision of services and facilities for young people. I hope that the clause will be supported as an act of cross-party consensus so that we can provide better facilities for young people.
Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)
This has been a useful discussion and I thank the Under-Secretary for his very positive response to the points that have been raised. Points that were made about our amendments Nos. 149 and 64 were particularly helpful—especially the extra information and constituency experience that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough brought to the debate. In the light of that I shall not press those amendments to a vote.
As to amendment No. 150, I am sympathetic to the Under-Secretary’s point that it is not just disabled young people who face barriers in gaining access to leisure facilities, or, indeed, many services in a local authority area, and his points about cultural differences are particularly apt in the context of my constituency. However, I am also pleased to hear him say that young people with disabilities—particularly learning disabilities—face particular barriers to access. I was reassured by the information that he gave about the issuing of statutory guidance on that matter, and I shall, again, not press the amendment.
In relation to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole raised about charging, will the Under-Secretary specifically address the issue of children in care when he publishes guidance? That is one particularly vulnerable group whose access to such facilities should be specifically considered.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
Two matters have been made less, not more, clear by the Under-Secretary’s response. I do not want to be too pedantic about this, but it is vital to get a clear answer to the question that the hon. Member for Bury, North posed at the beginning of this debate about sport. I hope that the Under-Secretary will also be able to answer my supplementary questions. He was crystal clear, I thought, about the breakdown of sports in which young people are engaged, but he said that 35 per cent. of pupils are involved in inter-school sport at partnership schools. That is a bit of a Sir Humphrey answer, because we do not know which those partnership schools are, or what proportion of the total school population is represented, or where in the country they are distributed.
What we really want to know—what I imagine the hon. Member for Bury, North wants to know, although he will make his own judgment about it—is what proportion of children in all maintained schools spend two hours or more a week on school sport. What I wanted to know was what proportion of children in all maintained schools, whether those are in partnerships or not, are involved in competitive sport or sport that involves a relationship with other schools. Those seem to me pretty straightforward questions, and I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary could answer them so that we could at least agree on that point. I know that he is trying to be helpful; I am trying to be helpful too.
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
I hope that I shall be helpful. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that 80 per cent. of schools in England are in a school sport partnership. That gives him some idea of the scale of the response. All schools will be in a partnership by September. At the time of the survey 50 per cent. of schools were in a partnership, so the figures are based on that proportion.
John Hayes (Shadow Minister (Vocational Education), Education; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
That is helpful, because we now know that 69 per cent. of children in 80 per cent. of schools engage in school sport for more than two hours a week, and that 35 per cent. of children at 80 per cent. of schools engage in sports that involve inter-school work—participating with other schools in competitive or collaborative ventures. I conclude from that that we have a problem, because a lot of children are not involved in physical education or sport for two hours or more a week. That suggests that a large number of children engage in school sport or physical education for a very short time, which underpins the concerns outlined at the beginning of the debate. At least we know where we stand now. I fully acknowledge the Under-Secretary’s desire to do something about that.
This debate has been conducted in a spirit that shows that we are all interested in doing our best by children in respect of physical education and school sports. Following this Committee, I should be interested to take the matter further and to consider how we could measure the trend over time, what difference we could make to the figures, what targets we might set, and what ambitions we might have for ensuring that more children participate. I hope that that will arise from this debate and from the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bury, North, which have been discussed at some length.
The other matter on which there was lack of clarity was access to playing fields. I want to be as generous as possible: it is true that the Government recognised the problem as early as 1998 and changed the guidance—and, indeed, the legislation—to try to deal with it, as the Minister for Schools will remember. However, the Under-Secretary and the Committee will be aware that the outcome was not entirely happy for the Government. In 1999, there were 590 applications to build on playing fields, but by March 2003 the figure had more than doubled to 1,297 applications per year. It is hard to imagine, is it not? At that time, the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills was asked to decide on 176 applications to dispose of school playing fields that were larger than 0.2 hectares, which is the size of a sports pitch. Of those applications, only two were turned down; so there were only two cases in which the Secretary of State intervened in favour of Sport England’s objection to building on those fields.
The Government recognised the problem and by August 2004, as the Under-Secretary will know, the then Secretary of State announced further protection for playing fields, because he recognised that, as a study conducted by University college London revealed—that is where I have drawn my figures from—there was a big problem in terms of school playing fields. I would be interested to hear from the Under-Secretary what the position has been since 2004, as we have not heard that today. We would hope that the series of tighter measures introduced by the then Secretary of State—now the Home Secretary—had to some degree stemmed the tide of building on playing fields, but I have not seen any figures to date or, indeed, today.
It is important for the Under-Secretary to reassure those Committee members who have expressed an absolute determination that sports should be given a prominent position, both in school and outside the school gate, that that sale of open space has not continued unabated. I do not think that it has, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary does not think so, but let us have the facts and figures before us so that we can make a judgment. Once again, this has been a helpful debate. I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for Bury, North, for giving us the chance to hold it.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s dogged tenacity in extracting those important figures from the Under-Secretary; they reveal that there is a problem. Even in the partnership schools, a large proportion of pupils—the Under-Secretary said 31 per cent.—are not getting two hours a week or more of high-quality PE or games. We have a problem that we need to address together, as a Government and as a Parliament.
The debate has been interesting. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough, is right that the duty does not necessarily require local authorities to provide the recreation facilities themselves; they can commission the voluntary and private sectors and other bodies to provide those facilities. It was refreshing and encouraging to hear that from a Labour Member, and even more so to hear it from her. I think that the Committee is reaching consensus on some important points of principle.
I am grateful for the Under-Secretary’s full and informative response. He pointed out that 70 per cent. of young people believe that lack of provision leads to antisocial behaviour and crime. Again, there is consensus in the Committee on that point, which was first raised by the hon. Member for Bury, North. I think that the Under-Secretary confirmed my understanding that the funding for the new duty comes principally from the youth opportunity fund, although he also mentioned local area agreements and other sources of funding to which local authorities have access. From what he said, however, I understand that the fund is the principal source of funding. That was a helpful note of confirmation.
Phil Hope (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Education and Skills; Corby, Labour)
I do not want the hon. Gentleman or the Committee to be misled. Local authorities have a duty to secure access as I described, but they should not use the youth opportunity fund, which is there to help to engage young people and ensure that they are involved in decision making regarding needs assessments and in giving their views about existing provision.
Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister (Schools), Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
I am grateful for that clarification. We support the clause, but that explanation demonstrates the general problem with what we do in this House. When we impose duties on local authorities without providing funding to discharge them, they have a problem: they must either raise council tax to fund the new duties or divert resources from other services. Our amendment is only a probing one, but discussions on it have revealed a problem faced by local authorities. Too often, we pass laws without thinking through the consequences that new duties and facilities will have on those who have to discharge and provide them, or how they will be funded. We have to take a serious approach.
We want many things from our public services—I reiterate that we support clause 6—but we have to be serious about the problem of introducing legislation and imposing new duties and responsibilities on local authorities and leaving the funding of those new duties to them. Sometimes there is a disconnect between the elected representatives who impose duties and the elected representatives who have to raise money from the public to pay for new services. We have had a revealing and informative debate on our probing amendment, and I do not intend to press it to a Division.
David Chaytor (Bury North, Labour)
I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for his long and detailed response to the amendments. It should give us food for thought that had the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings not taken tea at the Savoy, we might not have had the opportunity to explore these detailed issues, and might already have been well into our discussions on clause 7 and the Secretary of State’s veto, but that is a side issue. I am pleased that the brief amendments in the group have opened a debate on a clause that might otherwise have been unfairly neglected.
I have two brief points to make. First, the Under-Secretary has described an impressive level of commitment and achievement in encouraging school sport, in particular, and a stronger focus on education outside the classroom. I very much support the imminent publication of the manifesto on education outside the classroom. With legislative support for local authorities, we can look forward to further advances in that area, but the existence of sporting and other cultural facilities alone will not automatically develop the wider levels of participation that we all want. We must reinforce the argument that we need a coherent approach. On one hand, there should be a strong role for local authorities in providing or commissioning new facilities. On the other, we need stronger encouragement for schools to place far more emphasis on the importance of sport and cultural activities in the curriculum.
This is a debate for another occasion, but it is important to flag this point up now. I fear that the constricting effect of the national curriculum in recent years has had an adverse effect, whereby in subjects such as sport, dance, drama, art and music, some activities that do not contribute directly to a school’s record of achievement as defined by GCSE results have been squeezed out of the curriculum. I know that the Government have recognised that and are taking steps to free up the national curriculum and gradually reduce the burden of assessment that the national curriculum has triggered. However, that process must continue if we are to see the full flourishing of sport and the arts in our schools. Although many youngsters in surveys say that they want to spend more time on such activities during the week, they need guidance from an adult in a school setting because the capacity creatively to use leisure time does not come about by chance—it is taught, encouraged and facilitated, and we need time in the school day to do that.
My second brief point is that the hon. Member for Gainsborough, who is not in his place, drew attention to the sometimes substantial differential between sports facilities in private and state schools. I do not want to over-emphasise that point, because it is not true in all circumstances, but it is true in many. I simply flag up the question of whether the Charities Bill, which is wending its way through the other place and which grapples with the public interest criteria for continuing the VAT exemption for private schools, might provide a way of reducing that differential, which all members of the Committee see as unacceptable. However, that is a debate for the other place, and with those few words, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.