Examination of Witness (Questions 260-279)
TUESDAY 25 MARCH 2003
RT HON
MR CHARLES
CLARKE
260. Just going back to the Learning and Skills
Council, when they were set up their remit specifically included
sustainable development. When people like Sir Geoffrey Holland
say to our Committee that they do not feel there is a sense of
urgency about including that right from day one, we then get into
a situation where you have an end-of-pipe situation—which
was really the whole approach that we stood back from at least
five years ago. We want this to be integrated from day one and
then it is your responsibility. How can we make sure that the
Learning and Skills Councils, without too much variation locally
or regionally, are actually doing that? I think that is something
surely which as a green minister and as Secretary of State it
is down to you to make sure that they are complying with.
(Mr Clarke) I have two answers to that,
Ms Walley, but I have one preliminary point. One of the criticisms
made of the LSC at the moment is that there is not enough flexibility
for local LSCs to decide what they need in their particular communities,
and I think there is a real issue there which needs to be addressed.
But that is an aside point in response to what you said. My main
point is this: I would say the main responsibility of the LSC
for sustainability, looking at society as a whole, is to ensure
that we have economic enterprise and activity which provides opportunities,
jobs, economic futures for everybody in a whole community—and
I mean everybody. I am not simply talking about the traditional
skilled man; I am talking about women who have children, I am
talking about older people—a variety of different groups
there. I think it is an important element, in looking at the sustainability
of a community, that you have that. I certainly would argue that
the LSC has had that at the centre of its ambition since it started,
and the argument is about how well it does; that is: how well,
in Staffordshire, for example, in Stoke, the LSC locally looks
at the skills balance in that particularly locality, looks at
the skill shortages, looks at the job opportunities of people—who
is not getting work, who is getting work—and so on. For
me the test for that LSC is: How well is it doing that task? Is
it providing the courses, education and learning opportunities
throughout life or initially, at the age of 16 or even 14 onwards,
to enable those issues to be met? I do not think it could be argued—maybe
you would argue, I do not know, but I do not think it could be
fairly argued anyway—that that issue of sustainability is
not at the heart of the LSC agenda. You then come to the second
point, which is the specific green aspect of the sustainability,
if I may put it like that, which is about awareness of environmental
issues, about the way in which energy operates or whatever it
might be. I would say that is within the LSC's remit, as you rightly
say, but, as I said to Mrs Clark, I do not think it is quite high
enough in what ought to be done so far, for the reason that it
has been focusing on the first of those tasks. But that is a key
sustainable task, the first of the tasks that I have mentioned.
261. I think what concerns this Committee, especially
post Johannesburg Summit, is how we link all the issues here—educational,
economic, environmental, social—together. The argument is
that if you do not include the green aspect of that and do not
allow the very basic thinking that underpins it, you could well
end up ignoring it at a later stage.
(Mr Clarke) I have said this before but I will repeat
it: I think that the whole point of our skills agenda is to focus
on sustainability and innovation and the future of organisations,
whether public or private sector organisations. That, it seems
to me, if you have the world view I do and which I think I share
with the Committee, leads you inevitably to a green agenda for
the future. I think that is at the core of what the LSC is trying
to do. The question for me for the LSC is not: Is this at the
core of the agenda? The question is: How well is it carrying all
this through at every level? That is my pre-occupation.
Chairman: I think when you have found out, I
would like you to share that with us.
Mr Chaytor
262. Can I ask about workforce development,
particularly important to the trade unions. We have had some criticism
from trade unions at a previous session that DfES was not terribly
cooperative or was not proactive in promoting workforce development,
particularly when responding to the trade union suggestion that
more effort should be given to sustainability issues in the training
of workforces.
(Mr Clarke) I think that is a bit unfair.
263. They felt they were getting more positive
noises from the Treasury.
(Mr Clarke) To be blunt to the Treasury, they are
not doing anything so it is easy to make positive noises. The
fact is that the workforce agreement that was concluded by David
Milliband before Christmas, which was signed by the NUT in January,
is a quite historic development which allows these issues to be
properly discussed in a very direct way. I think that the workforce
situation, if I can put it like that, in schools is better than
it has ever been because we have such an agreement. The question
that then arises is to what extent are sustainable issues within
the agenda of that discussion? I think that comes back to where
we started right at the beginning of how adequate our various
vehicles are. We do support things like Healthy Schools, there
are various initiatives that take place, but I acknowledged at
the beginning of the hearing that I think we ought to be doing
more in each of these areas to put it on the agenda for particular
schools.
264. I think the question was misleading, because
I was referring not specifically to schools but to workplaces
in all different industries.
(Mr Clarke) I beg your pardon. What I would say about
that is that it takes me back to answering Miss Walley's question
about the role of the Learning and Skills' Council. If you take
the Union Learning Plan for example, which has very interesting
and positive projects, they include things on sustainability in
the environment. I think it now needs massive expansion and needs
to focus in the way you are saying. Why? Because the future is
in sustainable businesses and sustainable organisations. This
needs to be a part of it. One of the things we have got at the
moment is a very big focus on ICT in the training in all of this,
which is what organisations tend to go for, and that is good,
but that has not necessarily conclusions in sustainability as
well.
265. One of the problems identified by trade
unions in representing workers in the insurance industry was the
lack of basic scientific knowledge of school-leavers and the way
in which this limited the success of any training programmes which
raised the level of sustainability issues there. Are you conscious
of that?
(Mr Clarke) Absolutely.
266. The specific criticism was that school-leavers
were leaving with an accumulation of facts in respect of science
but no coherent understanding of scientific principles.
(Mr Clarke) I am acutely aware of this point and,
in fact, it is why we are focusing as hard as we are now doing
on science education. We are now running a series of national
and local centres of regional excellence in science teaching precisely
in order to promote a better understanding of science than exists
at the moment. In fact, in science we are doing rather better
than in maths and English in the various tests and so on. The
fact remains that your charge is true, there is not enough understanding
of the scientific method in pupils when they leave school. That
is a major priority for us in what we do. Obviously, the more
there is science the more we will be able to address sustainability
issues.
267. In respect of your own department's workforce
development, are there examples of good practice in terms of staff
development?
(Mr Clarke) On sustainability?
268. Yes.
(Mr Clarke) I would not say so. There may be, but
I am not aware of them[12]
269. Looking at the broader housekeeping issues,
and you focused several times on the importance of housekeeping
in departments, are there particular examples of good housekeeping
within your own department on sustainability issues that you would
like to promote or advocate?
(Mr Clarke) If you go through the various
aspects of what we do in terms of energy, the capital maintenance
of our buildings and training staff, there are things we are doing
in each of those areas, but (and I go back to the answer I gave
Mr Challen earlier on) I do not think we are strong enough strategically
yet in that area. I should say we are launching a new website
later this month to bring together information about the impacts
in sustainable development of what the department is doing on
its own estate and reporting on the targets which are set for
us within the Government's overall approach. As part of that,
we are ensuring that ministerial speeches, and so on, include
references to this, and that is all important.
270. So in comparison with other departments,
you think you have got some way to go to catch up with them?
(Mr Clarke) I would not say that, actually. I do not
think any of the other departments are doing particularly well
either. I know it is a custom, sometimes, for people to say "We
are doing great, the others are not doing that well"; I would
say we are not doing that well but nobody else is doing that well
either.
271. Finally, Chairman, coming back to the question
of rhetoric, taking your point that you want to focus on the reality
rather than the rhetoric, do you not think there would be an emphasis
if a Secretary of State gave a key-note speech at one of the major
education conferences on sustainable development in education?
(Mr Clarke) Yes, and I will.
272. Soon?
(Mr Clarke) Fairly soon. I will give you a notice
about it tomorrow! I will do something. I think it is important
to do that. Let me just say something about the green movement
in this regard—and I have been associated with the green
movement in a variety of ways both before and since being a Member
of Parliament. I think there is too much of a focus on speeches.
There was a big thing which ran for years about whether the Prime
Minister had or had not made a speech on this issue, and it was
thought to indicate the seriousness which was given to it. I just
do not think that is true. That is not to argue that it is not
worth doing a speech, because I think it is, and I think it is
worth coherently trying to set out in a strategic way what we
do. However, I think it should be based on a strategy rather than
based on producing speeches for its own sake.
Mr Challen
273. I was very pleased to hear that the department
is looking at the issue of school transport. Some of the measures
which, presumably, are part of that review have been outlined
in another memorandum. It seems to me that you are looking at
the symptoms rather than the cause, and is it not really the fact
that the cause is a combination of parental choice and league
tables and that some schools are becoming unsustainable because
parents are simply choosing to drive their kids past them?
(Mr Clarke) If you are arguing that we
should remove parental choice—or if that were the argument—I
would reject it. I am against the idea that we can simply allocate
pupils to schools by some bureaucrat in some office somewhere,
saying every pupil will go to some school on some criteria, whether
it is geographical or closeness or whatever. I am against it for
a variety of reasons, though I agree it would be tidier from the
transport point of view. One of the biggest issues in the school
transport area is the faith schools—the Church of England
and Catholic schools—and parents who believe their children
should go to a faith school. Therefore, there are transport issues
that arise in quite a serious way, which are significant not least
for the school transport system. I have had a formal discussion
with the churches about how we can moderate that, and I have had
a conversation with the Secretary of State for Transport. If the
general argument was that, somehow, we should stop parental choice,
I do not think we either could or should do that. I think the
way for us to get people to go to their local community schools,
as I wish to, is to get to a state of affairs where every local
community school is an excellent school. That is a process which
we are undergoing now.
274. I would agree that every school should
be a very good local school, but I would just refer to a case
in Leeds where we have a primary school review taking place and
a secondary school review. It is the case that where primary schools
have surplus places yet where that school is a very good school
they do tend to get stuck in a spiral because obviously the funding
follows the pupils and they may get an undeserved reputation.
So the real question is if we are not going to alter, not necessarily
do away with, parental choice, how are we going to better educate
parents about the value of seeing their kids go to a local school?
(Mr Clarke) That is a point which I can identify with
completely. I think the level of information given to parents
is not good enough about the quality and nature of schools in
their particular locality. We are discussing precisely how we
can provide better information across the range in order that
parents can make a more informed judgment. I think the point of
it is to make more informed judgments and not for people to flow
with some kind of fashion about what is or is not a good school,
rather than to stop parents being able to make a choice. I agree
with the thrust of your point, that the more information we provide
the more parents can properly decide on a real basis rather than
on some basis of fashion.
275. On the premise that we will provide parents
with more information, that leads one to conclude, perhaps, that
those schools that are in a difficult situation, which are good
schools—and demonstrably good schools—should also,
perhaps, have some kind of protection. Information takes time
to work its way through, and to educate people is a time-consuming
process, particularly parents, I suspect, who may not always give
their full consideration to all the factors. Should not schools
which are faced with these dilemmas have some better protection
from the efficiency argument that they have to go and other schools,
accumulating pupils, having to build on all sorts of portacabins
and extra classrooms?
(Mr Clarke) I hear what you say about the particular
situation in Leeds. I do not think that is generally the state
of affairs—of schools rushing ahead and others going behind.
I know of a number of circumstances where what you are saying
is true, ie that you are accurately describing what happens in
some places, but I do not think it is a general description of
the state of affairs. In the areas where that is happening, I
think it is incumbent on the LEA to really get stuck into that
particular area and stop the trends moving in the direction that
you have described, which can best be done by raising all schools'
standards. Some people say that this is an inexorable process,
a vicious or virtual spiral that takes place. I do not accept
that. I think there are a lot of examples where a vicious spiral
has been halted and there are other examples where a virtual spiral
has stopped, for a variety of reasons. I think the question is
how should an LEA intervene in that process to raise standards
all round?
276. How would we get LEAs to work together
on this? I can give another example (I am sorry to be a bit parochial
on this but I think it is a sound example) where in a large city
environment you have a sort of flight to the outer rim schools
and the inner urban schools are left half-empty. Where I am, you
have children coming from other LEA areas to go to the same schools
and that creates enormous pressures. LEAs might just want to concentrate
on their own patch rather than deal with other agencies.
(Mr Clarke) That is true, but they should not. LEAs
should look at the wider picture.
277. Are they required to?
(Mr Clarke) They are required to in terms of their
educational plan. They have to address these questions. Whether
they do is another matter. As you know from your experience, Mr
Challen, the fact is that LEAs are driven by a whole set of motivations,
of which guidance from central government is only one. Point One,
which is straightforward (and there may be disagreement, I do
not know), is that in my opinion parents should retain the right
to choose their children's schools, and it should not be taken
away from them. Point Two, we should be working—it is my
job and the LEA's job—to maximise the information that is
given to parents about the real situation in schools that they
go to. Point Three, the goal policy ought to be to raise standards
of excellence at all schools so that parents use that information,
and I think that is the right way to go. I would acknowledge that
the area where that is most difficult is in some of the great
urban areas of the country; it is certainly true in London and
some of the points you raise are certainly true in Birmingham,
certainly true, as you are saying, in parts of Leeds, and that
is where some of the issues are toughest to achieve what I have
just said. I still believe that is the right way to go.
Chairman
278. Secretary of State, I think we are getting
towards the end of our session, but there is just one issue which
I want to try and press you on a little bit further, if I can.
When you were talking earlier on you were talking about the three
big themes: I think you said transport, energy and agriculture.
In a way the reason why we are having this particular Inquiry
is because we feel that one of the main themes is learning. I
think we want to come back to this point about where your department's
role is in championing learning, learning right the way across
the agenda and right the way across the work of government, across
the whole sustainable development agenda. Do you see yourselves
as the champion of that? Do you feel that this cross-Whitehall
accord is going to be set up, is going to provide the basis for
you to go away from here and get on with that job? Will that require
extra funding and do you have that funding? How do you see it
panning out, given that there is a sense of urgency about this
issue?
(Mr Clarke) Firstly, I very much share
the sense of urgency which you are implying, because it is very
important. Secondly, the reason I selected those particular areas
is because unless we change the way in which our energy is generated
in this country—actually change the mechanism for generating
our energy—
279. Can I just cut across you there? Changing
the mechanism is one thing, but if you do not change people's
understanding, if you do not change people's perceptions you are
never going to get the go-ahead to change those mechanism.
(Mr Clarke) I was just coming to that point exactly.
If you will just let me finish what I was trying to say, what
I was trying to say was this: in my opinion, changing the way
in which energy is generated in this country will be an important
step to a greener future. Changing the way in which people travel—ie,
getting more people travelling on foot and by public transport
rather than by car—will be a major step forward. Changing
the way in which we grow our crops will be a major way forward.
In all of these the common theme, as you say (and this is where
I come to the point you interrupted me on), is learning and people's
awareness of what needs to be done in those different areas. In
some cases it is a very narrow learning question—eg, do
we know how to make renewable energy something that is economically
worthwhile and viable? To take that same example more broadly,
can we educate the wider population not to object to a wind farm
in their particular area because they see the environmental arguments
that come in a different way? In each of these areas there is
a range of learning from the narrow, technical learning about
what will make this business more sustainable in a greener world
in the future, to the more general popular understanding of these
issues right across a wide range. So I agree completely that learning
is an essential weapon to achieve changes in the three areas that
I mentioned. In my opinion, it is principally a weapon to achieve
that rather than it is the achievement of it. You can have all
the learning you like, but if you are still building nuclear power
stations or still travelling by car it will not be what you do.
Do I regard my department as the champion of the learning agenda
in each of those areas? Yes, I most certainly do, both across
government and other areas. What do I think then about the actual
systems that are used to do that? I will let you into the secret
that I am not a great fan of the Cabinet sub-committee approach,
and I do not think they are, generally, very effective devices
for doing this. I think it is better to do these things bilaterally,
which is why I have a bilateral with the Secretary of State for
Trade and Industry on questions today and that is why we are jointly
giving evidence to the Science Select Committee tomorrow. That
is why, also, I have a bilateral with the Secretary of State for
Transport and why I have a bilateral with the Ministry of Agriculture,
to see what can be done on those questions. Yes, I am happy to
co-operate across the departmental approaches, but frankly if
you ask me do I think they make that much difference, I am a sceptic.
If you then say what about resources, I do not think the key issue
is resources; I think the key issue is what we do with the resources
we already have. There may be resource arguments on top but changing
the National Curriculum, to take an example, is something which
is about what is done rather than about needing more resources
for it. Putting these issues at the centre of a LSC programme
for a particular sector—eg retailing—is a matter for
the LSC programme, of which money is not the key element. So I
do not myself see money as the key element, I see making it happen
as the key element. I am subject to a charge that I have not given
enough priority to this compared to some of the other issues I
have to deal with. That is a fair charge to make, but I would
say that we are trying to give much more attention to this in
my department now than we have done in the past. I do see us as
having the role which you indicated, but I do not think that should
be confused with actually solving the problems; the problems are
in the areas I mentioned.
Chairman: Thank you for that. I think we shall
look forward to the development of this theme, your speech and
seeing us all assisting the whole issue of learning. Can I thank
you very much indeed for joining us this morning.
12 DfES Memorandum, para's 13 to 17 and 23 refer to
examples. Also, DfES Memorandum para's 39 to 44. Back
|
