---

Mr. Forth : Tempted though I am, I shall not indulge in a debate on the principle of the scheme because I should be called to order. As I said at the outset, this is a narrow debate on the regulations. I had some difficulty understanding the arithmetic of the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). My arithmetic suggests that if he took the total amount spent on this excellent scheme and spread it among all the pupils in the maintained sector, he might reach the total of about £13 per pupil. I am not sure what dramatic difference that would make to the quality and standard of education. I leave him to draw his own conclusion.

About 69 per cent. of pupils on the assisted places scheme come from the maintained schools sector, well exceeding the 60-40 rule that we set out for the scheme. That gives the lie to the facts that were claimed by Opposition Members, not least the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) who, in a rather pathetic parade of class-ridden prejudice of a kind that we have come to expect from him, completely ignored the facts.

For example, the hon. Gentleman ignored the fact that 56 per cent. of parents whose children go on the assisted places scheme earned less than £12,000 last year, and that 38 per cent.--about two out of every five- -earn less than £9,000 per annum. How they represent the elite he claimed were taking advantage of the scheme is beyond me. I should have thought that such people might even have qualified for his soubriquet of the working class or manual working people of whom he approves. I suggest that he looks again at the statistics to see whether his class profile might be suggested to the House in a different form.

---

Column 949

The hon. Gentleman has suggested that the scheme may not deliver quality. The achievements of assisted pupils in terms of GCSEs, A-levels and AS-levels are well above the national pass- grade result, and fully comparable with the achievements of the independent sector as a whole. All the evidence suggests that the achievements of pupils on the scheme compares very well with those of others--which contradicts what some Opposition Members have suggested.

Mr. Don Foster : Surely the Minister accepts that children selected according to ability are expected to do well in examinations. What he is telling us is no surprise ; it is a repeat of what he said last year. Will he now tell us the evidence of added value from the scheme?

Mr. Forth : We are all repeating what we said last year. What mystifies me is why we have these debates annually, but if Opposition Members persist in coming to the House at this late hour and making the same speeches every year, I do not see why I should not do the same.

The fact is that all the evidence suggests that pupils whose parents put them forward for this excellent scheme fully vindicate not only the scheme and their parents' choice of education, but the schools that then enable them to achieve excellent results--results fully comparable with the results achieved by pupils in similar schools, and way beyond those of pupils generally and those educated in the maintained sector.

As for the accusations of elitism, I believe that they have been effectively disproved--not only by the income background that I described in response to the points made by the hon. Member for City of Durham, but by my points about the excellent level of achievement.

The brief but excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) was very much in tune with the thrust of the policies of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, starting with the White Paper "Choice and Diversity", which was produced last year. Of course we believe that the technology schools are an exciting new development in education ; I suggest that the emphasis on specialisation--that is probably the word that best sums up what my hon. Friend was talking about : drawing out young people's aptitudes, and providing them with diversity and choice in terms of different schools in their localities--must represent the way ahead. I trust that the Government are trying to encourage that approach, through our different policies in the Department and through some of the measures in the Education Bill, which will return to the House next week.

I believe that these narrow regulations build on a scheme that has been in place for some time.

Mr. Win Griffiths : I asked for clarification earlier on a point that strikes me as rather important. According to page 2 of the Department's report of its expenditure plans, the estimated outturn for the scheme in 1992-93 is £78 million. The 1993-94 plans involve expenditure of £95 million--an extra £17 million.

On page 16--where the Government show the figures for the number of places available--it is made clear that, for that extra £17 million, only 286 places will be available. That is equivalent to nearly £60, 000 per place. What is the reason for the big increase in spending and the small increase in numbers?

---

Column 950

Mr. Forth : I will give the hon. Gentleman an off-the-cuff reply and write to him in more detail subsequently.

I believe that the missing link is take-up. I must confess that, every year, we have been embarrassed by the fact that the scheme exceeds all our expectations. Year upon year, more people than even we anticipated take up their places in the scheme, and we then find that we have to provide yet more money, which we gladly do every year. But it is an annual embarrassment to which I am very happy to confess. That is probably the reason for the gap that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to understand.

Mr. Win Griffiths : I certainly would appreciate a full answer, because I am not entirely convinced by that. In table 10, giving the number of places available, it is pointed out that at the moment the new places being made available are almost all being taken up. Last year, 97.6 per cent. were taken up. So there is not much room for a greater take-up. I appreciate that higher up there are some big gaps, but surely that cannot be the answer.

Mr. Forth : I believe that this is the answer. What certainly is not the case is that we are providing places at £60,000 each. Even some of the more exotic schools mentioned by hon. Gentlemen do not quite reach that fee level. It is most unlikely, to say the least, that the Department is funding places to the tune of £60,000 per place.

I will write to the hon. Gentleman and give him a very full explanation of this, because it seems that we are unable at this stage to agree.

I hope that I have persuaded the House--

Mr. Steinberg : The Minister accused me of being class-prejudiced, and perhaps I am. When I look at the other side of the House, that makes me class-prejudiced. The statistics that I gave him had not been produced by me ; they were produced by the ISIS MORI poll, which said that 60 per cent. of the children came from middle-class homes, including Lloyd's, the civil service, and so on. So is the Isis MORI poll class-prejudiced as well?

Mr. Forth : I cannot imagine why the hon. Gentleman should disapprove of teachers and civil servants ; that is beyond me and is for him to explain on some other occasion. From the facts that I gave--these are the more relevant ones, I believe--over half the parents of children in assisted places scheme places have incomes of less than £12,000 per annum.

I will not follow the hon. Gentleman's obsession with what their occupations are. I am much more interested in the fact that the scheme is doing what it was set up to do--that is, helping those on low incomes to get their children into good schools.

Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth) : I would like to know the source of the Minister's information, quite simply.

Mr. Forth : The source of my information is the underpaid and overworked civil servants in my Department.

I hope that in this short debate I have been able to persuade the House that we should approve these excellent regulations, which update this excellent scheme, from which so many of our children benefit.

---

Column 951

Question put :--

The House divided : Ayes 229, Noes 177.

Division No. 332] [11.22 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Aitken, Jonathan

Alexander, Richard

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Amess, David

Ancram, Michael

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Ashby, David

Aspinwall, Jack

Atkins, Robert

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Baldry, Tony

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Bates, Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Beggs, Roy

Bellingham, Henry

Bendall, Vivian

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Boswell, Tim

Bowden, Andrew

Bowis, John

Brandreth, Gyles

Brazier, Julian

Bright, Graham

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Budgen, Nicholas

Burns, Simon

Burt, Alistair

Butler, Peter

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Carrington, Matthew

Carttiss, Michael

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Clappison, James

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Coe, Sebastian

Colvin, Michael

Congdon, David

Conway, Derek

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Couchman, James

Cran, James

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Day, Stephen

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Devlin, Tim

Dicks, Terry

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Dover, Den

Duncan, Alan

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Durant, Sir Anthony

Dykes, Hugh

Eggar, Tim

Elletson, Harold

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Evennett, David

Faber, David

Fabricant, Michael

---