 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Education and Inspections Bill |
Education and Inspections Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan Sandall, Committee
Clerk † attended the
Committee Standing Committee ETuesday 18 April 2006(Afternoon)[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]Education and Inspections BillClause 6Functions
in respect of recreation
etc Amendment
moved [this day]: No. 183, in clause 6, page 4, line 13, leave out
‘adequate' and insert ‘sufficient'.—[Mr.
Chaytor.] 4
pm
The
Chairman: 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.'. Mr.
David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): 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 (Brent, East) (LD): 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. Mr.
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): 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. 4.15
pm Ms
Angela C. Smith (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab): 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.
Mrs.
Nadine Dorries (Mid-Bedfordshire) (Con): 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?
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 19 April 2006 |