TUESDAY 25 MARCH 2003

__________

Members present:

Joan Walley, in the Chair
Mr Peter Ainsworth
Mr Colin Challen
Mr David Chaytor
Mrs Helen Clark

__________

Memoranda submitted by Department for Education and Skills

Examination of Witness

RT HON MR CHARLES CLARKE, a Member of the House, Secretary of State for Education and Skills, examined.

Chairman

Secretary of State, may I give you a warm welcome to our Committee this morning. I think it is the first time an education secretary has come before the Environmental Audit Select Committee or, indeed, our Sub-Committee. You are very welcome. To start off with we are interested in the preparation you have made for this session this morning. How have you prepared for it?

(Mr Clarke) First, may I thank you for inviting me to this meeting. When I was appointed Secretary of State I decided I would myself become the green minister for the department because I think it is a very important theme of our work, both in how we work in general housekeeping matters but also in the very big areas of the environment of learning and skills for sustainable economic progress and in relation to areas such as school transport, where I think we can make a significant difference. I believe that is where we ought to be very much more substantial than we are. To be blunt, I have not yet, however - I was appointed at the end of October - given the subject as much attention as I would wish. I have had a useful meeting with Jonathon Porritt, the Government's advisor on this, going through the various points, and we have had some internal meetings and we are developing a green strategy that we are going to publish, but I would not say I am as well prepared as I am before the Education Select Committee dealing with higher education fees, for example. But I hope I am reasonably well prepared and you will no doubt find out whether I am or not in a few moments.

I think we are hoping that arising out of our session this morning there might be even more strategy and initiative.

(Mr Clarke) Excellent.

Mr Ainsworth

Did you meet with Sir Geoffrey Holland as well as Jonathon Porritt?

(Mr Clarke) Before I was Secretary of State, when I was previously Minister of the Environment, I did meet Sir Geoffrey Holland and I had a very long meeting with his Committee. I have met Sir Geoffrey Holland since I was appointed, although not formally in this capacity. I have not had a formal meeting with Sir Geoffrey Holland and his Committee, though I have had conversations with Sir Geoffrey Holland.

We have had witnesses in the course of this inquiry who have praised your commitment to these issues and that is very welcome. I note that when you were Schools Minister in 1999 you said, "Education and sustainable development are interdependent ... I strongly believe, as does the Government, that ... it needs to be at the core of the education system." While nobody doubts your own commitment, significant doubts have been raised about the department as a whole. Indeed, Jonathon Porritt said to us in oral evidence that he did not think the department had a handle on what education for sustainable development in the UK might really mean. Have you identified problems yourself within the department in terms of its attitude towards this issue?

(Mr Clarke) I do not know at what point Jonathon gave evidence to the Committee. Jonathon made remarks which were very negative about the department which were given publicity - it may have ben in front of this Committee, I am not sure - as a result of which I asked to see him and as a result of which we met, because I wanted both to find out what he felt were our weaknesses and to see what needed to be done to address them. He certainly expressed that view. He said to me that he thought the people who dealt with it within the department were committed in the areas that we are talking about but that we did not as a whole have a departmental commitment to it (if I may put it like that) in the way that was necessary. I accept that charge. I think it is a question of going fairly mechanistically through the areas where we have direct control, such as our own housekeeping matters, at which the Government has looked generally; the areas in which we have indirect influence, such as school transport, which I think is a very major issue and about which I have had bilaterals with the Secretary of State for Transport, to see what we can do in those areas; and the areas where we are only tangentially responsible, such as the nature of the curriculum, where we made some changes, in the curriculum revisions we did two or three years ago, but where some would say we have not yet gone far enough in making sure that sustainability is an essential part of the curriculum. I suppose my frank answer to your question is: No we are not as committed as we need to be in these areas yet but I hope that we will become more so.

Where would you say that education for sustainable development - and I am not just talking about greener transport but education and learning - stands within the priorities set by your department?

(Mr Clarke) It is not high, in the sense that we have no PSA targets, for example, in relation to those areas, but I do think it stands, certainly in my picture - and I am the Secretary of State - pretty high. I would identify it in two particular areas: first, the secondary curriculum, where we did make changes, as you have said, in that area, but, secondly, one of the things we have to do with our skills resource, through the Learning and Skills Council, is to enable companies and other organisations, other employers, to renovate themselves on what will be the future agenda in the competitive world economy. I think that being a sustainable organisation and an environmentally positive organisation will be very important in that area. I think that should be an important part of what we do. I would not say at the moment, if I was speaking frankly, that it is high enough in our priorities in that area, but we have to push it forward and I hope this hearing will help that.

Would you be keen to revisit performance indicators, for example? There has been criticism that they are low-hanging fruit (to use that rather nasty expression): they are easily "grabable"; they are not very specific; they are not actually very related to sustainable development, and the only one that is, is concerned with improving awareness rather than actually learning and lessons for life.

(Mr Clarke) I have two things to say about this. First, I am always - and I mean this in a non-trivial way - ready to revisit performance indicators because we have to continue to refine the way in which we operate, and as we go into the next public spending review we will need to do that. Secondly, there is a real question in my mind about the definition of a successful PI in the area we are talking about. PIs, for example, in the curriculum are difficult to measure other than via the testing regime, and so the question is: What is in the tests? PIs on the internal departmental performance are relatively marginal. I mean, there are all kinds of performance we can achieve in terms of car use or energy or whatever, but it is actually ensuring in schools as they are built, with the major new capital programmes, that we have a sustainable approach, and in things like schools transport, which are all one removed. But if the Committee were to recommend that we ought to have PIs in this area and were to define what those might be, I certainly would be very happy to look at them.

Do you regard your department as the lead department on education for sustainable development?

(Mr Clarke) Yes, I do.

How do you tie in with DEFRA and the work that they are doing?

(Mr Clarke) We have good relationships. I have a bilateral regularly - in fact, with Alun Michael, we had the last one a couple of weeks ago - and we meet regularly to see what we can do and how we can improve it. If I was being frank, I would say it is probably more about rural education and the issues around that than it is about sustainability in its widest sense, although his department and he personally make the argument strongly, as you are implying, that we ought to be doing better in the areas that we are talking about. If you were to say that in government the only lead responsibility lies with DEFRA, I think at the end of the day that would be a guarantee of failure. In terms of the question you are asking me, when you talk about education for sustainable development, I have to see my department as leading that area and, I have to say, that if we do not lead in that area for whatever reason, then it will not really happen.

When DEFRA are developing, as they are, a communication strategy for sustainable development, you would see your department's role as the lead role where that strategy applies to education.

(Mr Clarke) I would, yes. I would want to work with DEFRA and to work with government as a whole in a coordinated communication strategy.

Are you actually working with DEFRA on that issue?

(Mr Clarke) If I look at the agenda I go through with Alun and DEFRA, I would not say that communication strategy is top of the list. I do think it is much more substantial questions, such as the nature of schools in rural areas, that we are addressing, and making sure that there are proper education and skills opportunities in rural areas, for example, which I think is part of any sustainability agenda rather than a government communication strategy.

Is that not rather more to do with rural policy than sustainable development?

(Mr Clarke) Yes, it is, but the truth is, as any member of parliament representing a rural area will tell you - though I am not such a person - unless we can get sustainable education and skills provision in rural parts of the country, we will have a continuing drift away from the countryside to the town or city in a way which is ultimately negative and, I would say, unsustainable. I think it is partly sustainability. One of the problems with this is, Mr Ainsworth, as I know you know, is the fact is that you are talking about such a wide range of different issues, but I would not say this, that or the other is the particular route; it is a question of trying to identify the different channels that we have to pursue.

Is it correct that the person in your department with day-to-day responsibility for education is the person in charge of the geography section of the curriculum division?

(Mr Clarke) Do you mean at an official level?

Yes.

(Mr Clarke) I do not think it is correct, actually, but I am not sure. You may be right. I am not saying you are wrong about that, but I have never looked at it like that.

It is the information we have. I wonder whether you thought that might be an example of how it is easy to pigeonhole education for sustainable development.

(Mr Clarke) Actually, it is an example of something different, which I am trying to drive through the department as well, which is what I call "subject specialisms", trying to get focus on particular subjects, and I do not think we give enough of a focus to geography, history and other subjects in what we do, and we have shared responsibilities in those areas and that no doubt gives rise to what you are saying.

Chairman

In terms of who is in charge of overall policy, would you feel that you have regular meetings with the overall policy officer? And I think it would be useful for us to know who that is.

(Mr Clarke) I do not have regular meetings. My style and approach, which may or may not be the right approach, I do not know, is to try to take a subject then drive it forward with a series of meetings relatively intensely and then maybe not have a meeting for a period of time. At the moment I am in the process of discussions with colleagues in my department on the issues I have mentioned. For me, the area where I think we can deliver the fastest rapid results is called transport, so the people who are dealing with school transport in the department, headed by one of my division heads called Tom Jeffrey, is the people to whom I am talking most about that area. I suppose I feel that if you say to me: Do I think there should be an individual who is at a certain level in the department who is "overall responsible" for this? I would say with anybody other than myself or the permanent secretary would be an appropriate place to put it, because I actually think there is a range of different things that we do that we need to take forward.

It is interesting that you have used the word "fastest" because when Sir Geoffrey Holland came to this Committee he was talking about the need to communicate a sense of urgency to your department about what needs to be done. I do not think we got the sense from the written evidence that you gave to us that there is this sense of urgency about new learning opportunities, particularly when the revised version of Education and Skills: Delivering Results, which was published just before Christmas 2002, has only one reference to sustainable development. How would you respond to that?

(Mr Clarke) Guilty, in a sense. I think what you are describing is a state of affairs which I am hoping to change. When I was appointed I took responsibility for this and one of my motives was to try to change that.

Would you expect there to be references to sustainable development in future documents?

(Mr Clarke) Yes, but I am much more sceptical than I ought to be about references to anything in documents. I could produce pages and pages and pages and documents and documents and documents, and I do not think references in documents add up to very much at all. In fact, I think one of the weaknesses of the environmental agenda across government is to focus on references in documents rather than what we actually do. As far as I am concerned, my priority will be what we actually do. As I say, the areas which I would identify are school transport, in particular; the schools' capital programme and the guidance we put out on the schools' capital programme in terms of actually building new schools and colleges with significant sustainability in them; the curriculum as we develop that; and, as I say, the internal housekeeping of the department. Those are the areas which I particularly identify. I am more sceptical than I ought to be perhaps but I am a sceptic about the number of references in documents related to what actually happens.

In terms of what the department actually do, I think it would be interesting for us to have some idea of the preparations that have started for the United Nations Decade for Education for Sustainable Development which I think kicks off in 2005. Are you having talks? Do you have plans? Do you have any ideas of how you might build up that UN Decade? Where is the issue of funding for it as well?

(Mr Clarke) I have a note in front of me of what we are exactly doing on this, but the point is that I believe strongly - but it is obvious from the tenor of questions that the Committee does not agree - that statements and declaratory remarks do not take us very far, including in terms of the UN Decade. I think it is a question of what we actually do. I think we are absolutely full up to here with declaratory statements. Again, you can criticise me for this, and you may do, but if I was to say that I gave major priority to our location within the UN Decade, the truth is I do not. I give major priority to try to sort out our school transport policy, to try to get a curriculum which moves forward and so on and so forth. That is what I am focusing on - maybe wrongly, but that is how I see it.

I think the concern as well is about learning and skills. Yes, of course, school transport is important and of course it is important to link up with, if you like, practising sustainable development through doing, through local transport plans, through the link up with local authorities and all that, but what about the policy of learning and skills in terms of how that filters down? Where do you feel the strategic aspect of all that is?

(Mr Clarke) Very specifically, we are publishing a skills White Paper in June this year. That will focus on the development of our sector Skills Councils and what we are producing. We have a number which have already started and we are taking it further forward. In each sector of the economy, we bring together the educators and the employers and so on, the innovators, in establishing precisely the skills that are needed for each sector. For example, in retailing: What are the skills that are needed? Do we have a skills gap? How shall we fill in the schools gap? What should be provided? To what extent are education and colleges providing the people who are needed? In all of that, in each of those, the LSE has a specific mandate - and you will see it in the document that is published in June - to see that the sustainability and the environment is a key element in that approach. I think that is the only way to go forward. When you are talking about the automotive industry, for example, or retailing or whatever it might be, you will find in that document that sustainability is a key element in what is happening as we try to re-establish the qualification for courses and so on which will make it go. That is the reason why we are working closely with the DTI, because we think it is the innovation skills relationship which is crucial and where we think we are well short of where we ought to be, and the innovation agenda takes you immediately onto the sustainability agenda because it is actually in innovating that companies make the difference. I would say we ought to be judged on how well or not our skills White Paper, for example - as I say to be published in two or three months time - meets those agendas rather than any particular verbal statements we make about the UN Decade.

The recent work that is being done on this Sustainable Development Education Panel, jointly with DEFRA, are you confident that the recommendations of that will be fed into the forthcoming White Paper you have talked about?

(Mr Clarke) Absolutely.

Mr Challen

Reading through the two memoranda we have received from your department, there are an awful lot of things there which could be sustainable development or perhaps they could be things that have just been redefined as sustainable development. Would you say the department actually does have a strategy of education for sustainable development or has it found all the things that you do and simply redefined them?

(Mr Clarke) I think that is a very fair question. I would say that we have not really had a strategy but we are working towards a strategy. I have a document in front of me, A Green Strategy for the Department, on which we are working at this moment and which we will publish in the next couple of months, which is directed at turning the descriptive list of what we are doing, which I think is better than some people give us credit for, into a strategy. I agree with you, we are not yet strategic enough but I hope we will become more strategic.

Do you think that process will be aided by the receipt of the SDEP's draft strategy, which I understand you now have? What difference do you think that will make?

(Mr Clarke) It will help us refine what we need to do. We are going to publish the report of Sir Geoffrey Holland's Committee shortly, so people can make their comments more generally, but I think we need input, including input from this Committee, to refine what we ought to do. I have tried from the outset in this hearing to say what I thought the things on which we should focus were, and that is what I will try to carry through.

You have seen the draft strategy. Do you think it will add substantially to what you are doing now or will it be a refinement of what has taken place?

(Mr Clarke) I think we are still not focusing enough. I want to bring focus to the strategic issues we have to take rather than to a list of checks that we go through. I think strategy means thinking of what we will prioritise on and where we will go. I think we do not have enough strategic thinking - and I think this is across Government, by the way - and we have too much of a tick-box approach.

It proposes setting up this "sounding board". What do you think that might add? Who will be on it? What will it do?

(Mr Clarke) I am always in favour of sounding boards but at the end of the day I think it is doing things which makes the difference and I think we have to do that. Who might be on it is a range of different people who have interest in the areas: a lot of very good people who work very hard. I do not think we link enough into the practical organisations, including businesses, which have themselves - both in areas such as transport and in developing software, and in terms of capital, in terms of buildings - actually done work in these areas. I think it is to those people we need to listen much more directly.

How do you think that will function within departments and influence what you do?

(Mr Clarke) It will produce reports from time to time and it will be a sounding board, as you say, for when we develop our proposals for people to make their input at that point.

I do not know what the timescale is on all this, but do not know if you have an idea about that.

(Mr Clarke) We just need to set it up as soon as possible. I suppose my difficulty - and perhaps it is becoming apparent as we go through the conversation - is that I am not myself convinced that setting up sounding boards, having conversations, having committees, producing reports, producing papers is actually the way in which we make a difference. I think the way in which we make a difference is by actually doing things and it is on that which we should be judged.

That would imply that you already have certain strategy developments in train.

(Mr Clarke) Yes.

Are you seeing any benefits from those at the moment?

(Mr Clarke) Going through the areas of concern, the Secretary of State for Transport and I have had a bilateral series of meetings which I hope will lead to a series of very concrete proposals in the area of transport. We are publishing our capital strategy in the next couple of weeks. As I say, I hope it will include reference to encouraging capital building using sustainable development. On the curriculum, which in many ways is the most important of all these areas, we are currently in discussions with QCA about a range of curriculum reforms, of which this is one. In relation to the Learning and Skills Councils, as I mentioned earlier, we are publishing our skills strategy in June, which I hope the Committee will feel when it sees it is addressing the skills needed for sustainability. Those are the four areas which I would particularly identify.

This question of skills I think is going to be a key issue. Skills can be acquired and I suppose will help in industry remaining sustainable, but we can have those skills for an industry that is not of itself sustainable, if you see what I mean - where we can teach people to do all sorts of things we no longer see as being terribly beneficial, for example, to the environment. Is that the thrust of the skills strategy that you are talking about or is it really coming from this focus of education for sustainable development?

(Mr Clarke) I think it comes from the focus of saying: What will be the successful enterprises in the future, whether in the public sector or the private sector? My answer to that question is that it will be sustainable enterprises which will be the most successful ones in the future. Therefore, how can we twin together the innovation/sustainability in particular industries and particular fields of employment with the skills needed to make that happen? I think that is the debate which we will gel in that skills White Paper. It is quite a difficult debate, because, as you say, there are areas where you might say, "Well, maybe that is not a sustainable way of life at all." You might say, for example, that shipbuilding or mining or whatever is not a sustainable way of life. I do not think I would go that far in the process. I was up in Teeside on the day that Corus announced its redundancies and I would not myself be part of the argument which said steel does not have a sustainable future, for example. I think one could not go down that course, but I think we can say that with shipbuilding that is the case. But, also, with all the other areas, the people who will succeed 15 years from now, the countries which will succeed, are those which are most based on a sustainable vision of the world. That is what we should be training people to do.

Turning to schools for a moment, do you think that education for sustainable development at the moment is being promoted well in schools or would you like to see different things being done?

(Mr Clarke) I think it is being done quite well but not well enough. If you look at the Eco-Schools Initiative, for example, supported by the EU and Environment Programme, and if you go through their website, which I have done, it is quite good but not good enough is what I would say. I think it is initiatives like that which you need to develop and take forward. I think there are curricula issues where it ought to be possible - for example, in food technology, for example in statistics - to develop systems which encourage and move it forward. I think in citizenship there is a variety of different initiatives that operate there at the moment, and it is okay, but I would say all of it is okay but not good enough. I think the answer to it is for us to have a stronger focus on where we ought to be going.

In one of the memoranda, the later of the two we have received, on citizenship it says, "Pupils acquire the knowledge, skills and understanding to help them become active and informed citizens." It seems like we have already got there, judging by this statement; that we have already measured it and we now know that pupils are acquiring these skills rather than just learning about them.

(Mr Clarke) To be frank, I think that since this Government introduced citizenship into the curriculum in 1998/99 there has been a significant move forward compared to where it was. If you say to me, "Have we got where we ought to be," I agree we have not, but I do think we are moving in the right direction and I do not think we should - and I certainly will not - undervalue what has been achieved by saying it is not there. I think, on the contrary, we want to encourage those who are moving down that line and look for improvement rather than saying that what we have done is not good enough. That is what my department's evidence is trying to reflect.

Would any part of the forthcoming strategies try to address or question how to try to measure progress on this? It seems to me - and I have said this previously in committee - that you can teach people things in schools but when they leave the school gates their behaviour is then influenced by a whole range of other factors.

(Mr Clarke) I think this is a very tough question. I have thought about the measurement question and I do not have good answers, other than in terms of inputs. I mean that you can measure the number of hours that are spent teaching these things and that is okay but I do not think at the end of the day that is a good measure. It is outputs which are important. Again, I would welcome the views of yourself personally and also the Committee on the outputs we might measure which would be positive.

Perhaps a lot of these sort of requests are going to bodies like Ofsted, for things that they should include in their measurements. Do you think they should perhaps include something on education for sustainable development?

(Mr Clarke) I think there is a very good case for doing that. We are currently discussing with Ofsted. That is one of the recommendations from Sir Geoffrey Holland's Committee and we are currently discussing how we might do that. We are looking at the whole role of Ofsted, as we have gone through, and we are now going to the third cycle of Ofsted reports and much of the initial role in terms of dealing with the seriously failing schools has been addressed, and the question of how we expect schools in a more rounded way, if I may put it like that, which would include this subject, is right at the top of our agenda.

Have you had any preliminary information about Ofsted's current research into this area?

(Mr Clarke) I have not myself, no. It may be that it exists but I have not myself studied it.

Chairman

Just before we leave this whole issue of learning, perhaps you could tell us, in the light of your work as a green minister, do you see your department taking the lead across the whole of government in getting the whole of sustainable development championed across government? Do you see that as the intention of your department and your work as a green minister?

(Mr Clarke) Not specifically, except in so far as the learning and skills agenda is one that goes across the department. I think it is our responsibility within the learning and skills agenda, whether in schools or in post-school education, lifelong learning or whatever, to champion that issue throughout that, and that necessarily knocks on into other departments of government, but I do not see it as our responsibility to be leading the way right across the whole of government. I see that more as DEFRA's responsibility.

In the context of the green minister role, could you perhaps help the Committee as to whose responsibility it should be to take that lead, to take that challenge forward in respect of learning.

(Mr Clarke) In respect of learning I am sorry, I misunderstood the question. In respect of learning, I think it is our responsibility.

In respect of learning for sustainable development.

(Mr Clarke) Okay, that is our responsibility. I would say that is our responsibility. I misunderstood you earlier. I thought you were talking about the responsibility for sustainable development.

No, responsibility for learning, without which we cannot really achieve any sustainable development.

(Mr Clarke) In that case, we are at one. I think it is the responsibility of our department to champion education and learning skills for sustainable development across government.

Just following on from that, could you give us a little bit more of an idea as to how the various education agencies (for example, the Teacher Training Agency, the Learning and Skills Council) deal with this. Do they get together to discuss this in a strategic way?

(Mr Clarke) Not yet. But I think they should.

When do you think they might?

(Mr Clarke) You can take them separately. The LSE is very much considering this in the context of the skills White Paper which I mentioned earlier and it is considering it. The Teacher Training Agency, it is on its agenda and there are various aspects within the TTA that develop this. Following on from my answer to Mr Challen (where I am acknowledging that we do not yet have a strong enough strategic approach as opposed to a checklist approach), I think that will not happen in the way you are describing until we have a stronger strategic approach, which is what I am keen to get.

Mr Chaytor

Could I just pursue some of the school issues that Mr Challen raised. In respect of the flagship policies for school improvement and raising of standards - and I am thinking of Specialist Schools and Excellence in Cities - what guidance is there from government to those two programmes that sustainable development should be at the heart of what schools are trying to achieve?

(Mr Clarke) Not a great deal, if I am being blunt.

Is that a missed opportunity?

(Mr Clarke) To an extent, but there is a tension, which from your membership of the Education Select Committee you have discussed a lot and which we have also discussed in this Select Committee, between a drive to raise educational standards narrowly defined (meaning academic outcomes) and a more rounded school curriculum across the whole range. There is a tension which we are currently trying to resolve, I hope in a more positive way, which would allow sustainable development to be a big feature along with other things of the overall curriculum in a better way. But if you are asking me, as you did: What exists in our current guidance, our current approaches, in relation to these initiatives? that is why I say not a lot. Do I think it should be more in the framework? I do.

If it should be, what are the opportunities for changing that as the Excellence in Cities Programme and the Specialist Schools Programme develop?

(Mr Clarke) As far as specialist schools are concerned, the approval for specialist schools can and should involve sustainable development as part of it. As far as the Excellence in Cities Programme is concerned, that should simply be one of the general inputs into the overall Excellence in Cities approaches and partnerships - and, by the way, I think it is in quite a number of partnerships. I do not want to sound too negative about this; I think, actually, there is good work being done on this in a number of different areas but I am trying all the time to say that I do not think we have done as much as we need to. We should do more - which is my view - we are not yet at the point of doing more, and, as you say, to use vehicles like Excellence in Cities and the Specialist Schools Programmes to do more.

If, in respect of the Specialist Schools, it can and should be part of the guidance, when is that going to be given to Specialist Schools? Does the department issue that guidance or is it the Specialist Schools Trust?

(Mr Clarke) I do not know where formally it lies, but it certainly is a departmental responsibility and we discuss it with the Specialist Schools Trust. We are developing guidance at the moment in the light of the White Paper that we produced two or three months ago - two months, I think - on Towards a Specialist System.

Is there an argument for a new specialism for schools focused on sustainability?

(Mr Clarke) I would not say so myself. I think there is an argument for making sure that sustainability is something that is part of what every school does rather than an argument that says put it in a particular corner. You are right in a sense, that if we could develop the specialism in an effective way that could spread good practice across, it would be worth trying to do. But I have not thought of it specifically as a specialist school specialism - but I will think about it.

Earlier you said that the Government's influence over the curriculum was tangential, because presumably the QCA has responsibility for drawing up the detail of the curriculum content. What is the interface between what the Government can prescribe and the responsibility of the QCA? We know that there are areas where the Government are very prescriptive.

(Mr Clarke) The reason I used the word "tangential" is that I think the relationship between what the QCA does or does not do and what the department does or does not do and the curriculum is not as clearly set out as it needs to be. As I told the Select Committee on Education a while ago, we are very actively looking at that relationship to get it right. It is actually within the power of the Secretary of State to lay down what the curriculum is but the convention and practice has been -----

You have more power than you thought you would have.

(Mr Clarke) I have more power than I use. That, Mr Chaytor, is just a characteristic of the way I like to do business. The QCA, as a result of a whole set of custom and practice, which I respect, has an independent authority in these areas which I think it is important that it should have, but we are currently discussing very actively, most recently at an event I had yesterday evening, what the nature of that relationship should be, how we move it forward, the aspects we should be developing, and sustainable development well comes within that framework.

I think you said that in a couple of weeks you are going to publish a capital strategy. We are in the middle of an enormous programme of school building of £3 billion a year or more, the PFI schemes are now well underway. Is there any guidance to local authorities or PFI contractors about sustainability criteria built into these projects?

(Mr Clarke) We actually published our capital strategy about two weeks ago. What we are publishing in the next couple of weeks is the initial round of allocations to authorities -----

In the strategy published two weeks ago, is there any reference to sustainability?

(Mr Clarke) There is reference to it and there is guidance we offer, but the question of whether it is taken up and how well it operates is another matter. The question really is not so much whether guidance exists as how effective our monitoring procedures are actually to get adherence to it. We have had various initiatives which operate in this area. For example, we have a design brief for schools for the future, called Schools for the Future, which has design solutions, and designs for primary and secondary schools are available for use by LEAs and also by larger procurement agents to deliver large-scale school replacement programmes. That does include revised energy targets in line with the new part L2 of the building regulations on conservation of fuel and power but it does include a bespoke building and research establishment and environment assessment method for schools. We have also recently published Classrooms for the Future which has excellent designs and purpose-made learning environments that do incorporate sustainable development. We also fund the energy saving Trust School Energy Programme which relates to this as well. So there is a range of different things that we have published of this kind but my worry is how effectively do we make this happen in terms of the building that is actually taking place and is moving forward. I suspect the answer is that as far as new buildings are concerned it is not bad at all, but, by definition, that is a very small part of the overall capital programme that we have and the question is to get it more into the rest of the capital programme in a sustainable way. When you look at various savings that can be achieved in heat and power, for example, by investing in better quality schools, I am not convinced that that is at the heart of most local education authorities' or individual school's capital or thinking, but it has not been at the heart of our thinking either. I think we have a number of guidance documents - and I have given some examples - which help us in those areas.

Do you think there is something inherent in the PFI structure, where the energy efficiency savings, for example, are not considered a priority on the part of the contractor, who can easily build that into the future cost.

(Mr Clarke) On the contrary.

The costs are picked up by the revenue budgets of schools in the years ahead.

(Mr Clarke) I do not think that is true at all. On the contrary, I think you will find that the PFIs are at least as good as anyone else in looking at that approach. But I think there is a case for saying that PFIs are actually better because they involve the most up-to-date private sector building methods, in ways that some of the publicly procured capital programmes have not done to the same extent. Where it is demonstrated - which is in a number of these areas - that there are revenue savings later down the line by investing at the beginning, because of the timescale of the PFI programmes, there is a benefit to the PFI producer in doing that.

You mentioned a document Classrooms of the Future.

(Mr Clarke) It exists. It has been published.

What does that say about the designs of classrooms in the future and the way in which the design -----

(Mr Clarke) I do not actually have a copy in front of me. Should I let the Committee have a copy. Would that be helpful?

Chairman: We have received it as evidence.

Mr Chaytor: That is our error. Thank you very much indeed.

Chairman

I think the issue on that is how can you enforce it. How can you make what you say should happen, happen?

(Mr Clarke) As I said to Mr Chaytor, that is my biggest worry about where we are. I share the point. The answer is that you can try to make it a condition of grant and so on to work in that way, but you are in very difficult territory here - and it is a problem for the Department of Education in a lot of what it does: Should we be giving money to local authorities or should we be giving it conditionally on certain things, and, if so, what should the conditions be? That is an ongoing debate. All I will say is that in the advice that our department gives to local government in what it is doing, we both use that particular document, but generally use the sustainable development criteria in advising departments what to do. I have to say, the issue in my opinion is not so much of people not wanting to do it, it is of people not being aware enough of what can be done and what can be achieved.

Which comes back to the learning agenda.

(Mr Clarke) It does, indeed, yes.

Mr Chaytor

In terms of the capital programme, the PFI and the local authorities own capital build, what monitoring takes place specifically in terms of the sustainability criteria? Is someone actually looking at energy savings across the board?

(Mr Clarke) I think the true answer to that is: After the event not much, if any. At the time at which the discussion is taking place about a particular investment, I think quite a lot takes place in the general discussions that move forward, but after the event, after the allocation has been made, after the thing moves forward, I do not think there is enough monitoring of what happens. We are going to develop, as part of our strategy on our website, a more appropriate way in which schools can look at the savings that have been made in their own budgets by making investments of this type, but I could not tell you that we have a strong monitoring approach to the way that capital is being spent from a point of view of sustainable development.

Given the size of this capital -----

(Mr Clarke) It would make a major difference.

There is evidence that the Government, in terms of emissions, is moving towards more stringent controls on emissions, is trying to deal with the growing mountain of waste by minimising waste production and through recycling, and yet schools, through this expansion of building, are going in the opposite direction and nobody will know what is happening.

(Mr Clarke) We require local education authorities to produce asset management plans which indicate how they approach this, and we are building green incentives into that so that our schools' capital and building division reviews their asset management plans from this point of view. But I think it is necessary to do more in this area.

There is no systematic national collection of data.

(Mr Clarke) I would not say there is, no.

Chairman

Just pursuing this whole issue about the building environment further, there has been this survey by the Centre for Research, Education and Training in Energy which refers to the waste of the educational potential of school buildings built under PFI where the green procurement policy has not really been underwritten into it. Would you agree with that? If you saw really extensive evidence of so much of the PFI programme not taking account of this agenda, would you want to sit down and try to change it through whatever opportunity there was to do that?

(Mr Clarke) Not from the point of view from which you are asking the question. I think the issue for the PFI all the time is how good is the client; that is, how good is the organisation that has commissioned the building to be done. I think it depends on the client - the local authority/the school/the department - how much it writes, in this case, sustainable development, but also other issues, into the specification for the PFI project.

Is that not part of a circular argument: If you do not have the awareness of that, if you do not have the understanding about that, if it has not learned the opportunities through that business aspect to write that into the contract, you are going to be spending all this money on this huge capital build programme and our schools in the future are not going to be sustainable but neither are they going to be given the opportunity to learn about sustainable development?

(Mr Clarke) I think that is too extreme. I may have misunderstood your question. I thought your question was coming from the point of view that PFI as a system necessarily led to less commitment to sustainability than non-PFI, if I may put it like that, and I was contesting that proposition because I do not think that is true. I do think it is true in the way that you put it: that the extent to which those who are commissioning buildings are aware or not aware of sustainable development, and therefore do or do not include sustainable development within the specifications of the buildings that they do, is the key factor. I accept that it is my department's responsibility to try to encourage that in a variety of different ways. I would argue there are some things we are doing now - and I gave some examples earlier - but if you push me, as you have done, to say could we/should we do more or could we/should we monitor this more, I say yes, you are right, we should be doing more. So I think we are ahead of where we were but not as far as where we need to be. That is why I made the remark to Mr Chaytor that I did, that, I think, if you look at new schools and colleges as they are being built, they in fact are but also will be pretty sustainable as they move forward. The question is what you do with the vast number of other buildings which are not part of the new capital programme, substantial though the new capital programme is. The biggest lever we have in terms of the built environment is our capital programme, which is a very extensive capital programme. It is true to say that we ought to be doing more than we are now - though we are producing guidance, we are producing books like Classrooms of the Future and so on to address those issues - and that is a fair point, but I would not accept the point that (a) we are not doing anything or (b) that PFI of itself is an obstacle to being able to do this.

I certainly think the latter point was not one we were making.

(Mr Clarke) I am sorry.

I think the point we wanted to make was really on your opening comment to us that this is an opportunity to show through doing what a difference we can make.

(Mr Clarke) I agree.

If you have a school environment, if you have a classroom, if you have a school building or premises where there is not a good example being set, what does that do to stunt the way in which the pupils can go on to really internalise the whole sustainability agenda?

(Mr Clarke) That is true, but if you look at new schools that are built even now, not in the current capital programme that we are currently doing, you will see not a bad record in terms of sustainable buildings for new schools, and I think you will find even more will that be the case on the new schools that are built with the money that we announce in the next couple of weeks; that is a year and a half, two years down the line. I think in that area there is quite a lot happening but we could do more. I am saying, though, that the more difficult problem is in areas where exactly what you are describing exists, in areas where we are not investing more money - because, by definition, we are investing in some areas but not in others - and we have to think how we can move that forward.

As a Committee I think we would be very interested to hear how you are able to do that with contractors. Could I ask one more thing in relation to your evidence, how you see the department's role in relation to not just the rest of government but the voluntary sector activities as well. How do you see your department's role delivering informal support for behaviour change among adults.

(Mr Clarke) I suppose quite a lot. You have to think where you define the end of your sustainability. A key element of sustainability for me is sustainable communities economically, where everybody within a community has a reasonable economic future and reasonable prospects. Things like the New Deal were very important from that point of view. It is equally the case, where we have a situation where 7.5 million adults do not have basic numeracy and literacy up to level 2, that it is a major part of our programme to try to attack that, by the Learning Skills Council and by a variety of different means. I would say getting an educated population up to a basic level is a pretty important part of any sustainability agenda. In that, we work with voluntary community organisations, we work with trade unions, we work with a variety of different organisations to try to make that go. If you are asking: Should we support wider ambitions? I think if you look at the lifelong learning centres that exist, which we are funding, you do see a lot which is of itself sustainable in what is happening there. I was at a centre in Gateshead the other day, for example, where men and women were coming into the college and doing work on a wide variety of courses, which meant that they had some economic future rather than none. I would say that is quite important on the sustainability agenda but that would also include, as it were, pure environmental courses as part of that too. So I would see us as having an important role in that.

Mrs Clark

Universities, Secretary of State. We have talked about colleges, but what is going on in the universities? Are they doing courses and options? When we spoke to Sir Geoffrey Holland he said that there was only one university in the whole of the country that had an ESD option for its MBA course and no one chose to take it up. What are you doing about that?

(Mr Clarke) I think there are a number of things to be said about that. The first is that the test of whether anybody chooses to take something up is quite an important aspect, because if you are a university you can only offer courses which people want to do, and that comes back to the more general issues which Ms Walley was raising about the general culture of this that is around. I think if you are going to make MBA courses in sustainable development popular, both with employers and with potential students, the way to do it is to tie it into what I was talking about earlier, the innovation agenda for business generally, and the argument for sustainability is right at the core of that. Universities in that sense will reflect the market place rather than create it. In terms of both undergraduate courses and in terms of research, you would find in British universities a large amount of work being done on the environment on undergraduate courses - I do not have the figures but I think it is quite substantial - and you would also find a large amount of research being done. But the truth is that it is initiatives like the White Paper produced by the Department for Trade and Industry three or four weeks ago, committing to sustainable and renewable energy in the future and therefore committing to research in those directions which will then have its knock-on in what goes on in universities. I think that is the fact of it.

But quite slow progress so far, you would say - rather dragging its heels.

(Mr Clarke) For me, let me say, the three big things on which we are talking about a green agenda are transport, energy and agriculture. Those are the three areas on which we ought to be trying to make real progress. If you take each of those in turn, on transport we have done a bit but not a lot and there needs to be more done. On energy, I think the DTI White Paper, which, as I say, was only published four or five weeks ago, was an excellent White Paper and was a major step forward and it would be surprising if universities had got ahead of that agenda. On agriculture, the negotiations on the reform of the CAP, which seem to be interminable, are still proceeding in that area. I think it would be a mistake to think that universities will do other than reflect that process.

What about the LSEs? I do have one in my constituency and I am not aware at all that it has this anywhere on its horizon. I may be being very unfair to it - I am going to see it in a couple of weeks time, so I will be able to see.

(Mr Clarke) I think you are probably being a bit unfair but not very unfair. I know, Mrs Clark, you have never been very unfair on anybody. I think you are probably being a bit unfair but not very unfair. I do not think environment and sustainability has been very high on the LSE agenda - I am talking about nationally, and locally it varies as well. I think it is because it has been focusing on getting itself together essentially. It has only been in existence for about a year and it has been trying to get itself together. I think sustainability is moving up its agenda quite substantially and quite rapidly. I had a meeting with a group of LSEs in the north-east the other day and I felt there was a focus on it. My advice would be - and as I say it is not off anybody's agenda but I would accept the charge that it is not high enough on agendas as yet - that the whole core of their agenda is to look at skills gaps in their local communities, and that is a key element in terms of sustainability of a particular community. So that, if, as I say, Corus closes and 4,000 steel jobs go on Teeside or wherever it is, the sustainable agenda is for the LSE to deliver economic futures for the people who are there. That is a key element. That is slightly different to the purely green agenda, but I would argue it is an important part of the sustainable agenda.

If I could take you back to the whole issue of statements and documents. I am somebody who actually was a teacher for 18 years and I find that teachers actually do like to see things on paper, with guidelines and sort of posts and things like that. I really do not think you are going to get this whole issue taken up seriously within education and that environment unless you actually do make key note speeches, statements, documents, and they filter through schools, universities and LSEs. Are you a bit concerned about that?

(Mr Clarke) I agree up to a point, but only up to a point. That was my qualification when I was answering Ms Walley earlier on. I certainly think we need the statements, I certainly think we need curriculum indications of what needs to be done and so on. I am in no doubt about that. I would say that as far as this Government is concerned the curriculum changes that took place in 1998/99, which did specifically put sustainable development into a number of aspects of the curriculum, have had a material difference already for exactly the reasons that you say. I suppose I am saying - and I am not against making speeches: I try to make as few as I can of them, but, nevertheless, I am not against making speeches and moving forward - is that I think too much of this area has been characterised by rhetoric and not enough by substance. That is why I am slightly ducking the point about more rhetoric, and yet I am saying that the charge which you should make against me - which in fact you are making at this hearing - is: Where is the beef? I think it is the "Where is the beef?" question which is the right question for you to be asking and the right question for me to have to answer.

Chairman

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 LSE at the moment is that there is not enough flexibility for local LSEs 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 LSE 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 LSE 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 LSE 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 LSE 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 LSE 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 LSE'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.

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 LSE is trying to do. The question for me for the LSE 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In respect of your own department's workforce development, are there examples of good practice in terms of staff development?

(Mr Clarke) On sustainability?

Yes.

(Mr Clarke) I would not say so. There may be, but I am not aware of them.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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 ----

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.