House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Jul 1993

Mrs. Mahon : We have clear evidence that the Government do not intend all schools to operate on equal terms.

Mr. Steinberg : What the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has said seems remarkable. I am a member of the Education Select Committee. We wrote to the Secretary of State asking him what was the policy on capital expenditure in opted out schools. He categorically said that it was the Government's policy to ensure that opted-out schools received more money for capital expenditure than LEA schools. That was in a letter which he wrote to all members of the Select Committee. So he appears to say one thing at one time and something else at another time.

Mrs. Mahon : That shows that the Government are willing to use children and their education as political footballs.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the teachers, governors and parents of the excellent Ryeburn comprehensive school in Calderdale in my constituency who resisted the bribe. They voted two to one against opting out. The school was built for 600 pupils and now has more than 1,150. It is bursting at the seams. If there was accountability in distributing capital grants, the school would have more than qualified for the extra money that the Minister gave out so liberally to the other schools.

I ask the Minister now whether he will treat Ryeburn school as generously as he treated Crossley Heath school, which received more grant than the rest of the schools put together and, if not, why not? He must answer that question because the children at those schools are all his responsibility.

I have with me a report which I intend to send to the Minister after tonight's debate on the Lords amendments. It was produced by the financial department of Calderdale council and it deals with the financial implications for the

Column 71

local education authority of grant-maintained schools. I ask the Minister to consider it carefully. It exposes the double standards--it is factually correct--if what is happening in Calderdale.

The report expresses doubt about double funding. The extra money that goes to grant-maintained schools comes from an already grossly underfunded local education authority budget. It is a shrinking budget, thanks to the Government's cuts. Since 1979, we have lost about £160 million in grant from the Government. We were also unfairly poll tax-capped. But the inadequate budget for LEA schools has to provide for school meals, special needs and a host of other essential services for all LEA schools. It provides no luxuries. I submit that the Government are deliberately creating a two-tier system of funding. I can only conclude that their aim is to produce a segregated schools system. That will damage children's education. If Calderdale becomes the pilot for the funding agency, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury that parents will have to deal with Government appointees to a remote, unaccountable, secret quango. What will parents do when they want to appeal about which school their children attend or to complain about something?

Next year, the LEA schools in Calderdale will face the possibility that their delegated budgets will be cut to fund grant-maintained schools. That would be an absolute outrage. It would be grossly unfair to children, teachers, parents and governors.

I shall support the local authority's campaign, which will be led by a Tory education spokesman, to warn other authorities about exactly what is happening on the ground in terms of unfair, unaccountable funding and the creation of a two-tier system. If even a Tory council such as Calderdale recognises the iniquity of the system, there is something seriously wrong. Will the Government use the Bill's powers to end a potential disaster for children in Calderdale?

6.30 pm

Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) : Several hon. Members have spoken about the Government's double standards in refusing to accept amendment No. 177. This is a fundamental issue and the principle seems to emerge in two areas. I suppose that we should be grateful that the Government are at least doing something consistent, but it is distasteful.

Like schools in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), none of the schools in my constituency has yet been persuaded, despite enormous bribes, to accept grant-maintained status. Indeed, Whitby high school recently voted firmly against grant-maintained status. Many parents and teachers have started to worry about the Government's double standards.

The Minister referred to the problems created by cutting across the role of the Audit Commission or the Public Accounts Committee. So what? Is not the essence of openness that those at the sharp end--the parents of the pupils and the teachers--should be entitled to the fullest information on what is happening in the school in question? My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) commented on the Government's claim that they

Column 72

seek to open society. Just last week, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster--who, a moment ago, fortuitously popped in, heard 30 seconds of this debate and left--introduced a White Paper on openness in government. Do the Government intend to provide access to information just in Whitehall? Are we to learn only about who was spying for whom 50 years ago, or will the Government get down to openness in current issues that affect real people, such as children in our society?

The position can be compared to what is happening in the health service. I was recently berated by a Government employee--the chairman of a hospital trust--for having the temerity to publish a policy document from that hospital trust showing how £1.7 million-worth of cuts would be imposed. The public are entitled to such information. In another area of the Government's dogmatic approach--the creation of grant-maintained schools--are not the public entitled to know precisely what is happening? The only conclusion that one can draw from those two examples in the education service and hospitals is that the Government have a particular form of double standards. They will happily tell the public about certain pieces of information but, when it comes to the cost of implementing policies based on sheer dogma, they will not tell the public what is happening.

I challenge the Minister to get his feet off the Dispatch Box and come clean. Is he simply saying that the only reason for keeping information about grant-maintained schools from the public domain is that it hides part of the Government's dogma and it would suit the Government not to tell? Everyone knows that that is so. If the Government were sincere, they would accept amendment No. 177.

Mr. Don Foster : The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) referred to national health service trusts. May I draw his attention and, more important, that of the Minister to the importance, when applying for NHS trust status, of combining operational and financial details? As I said in Committee, if the governors were required, when applying for grant-maintained status, to provide full details of their financial projections for the next two or three years, that would go a long way towards resolving some of the concerns in schools.

I rise to speak because of the Minister's comments in introducing this string of amendments. Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 extend the Secretary of State's responsibility not only to consider, as members of the funding authorities, those with experience of voluntary and grant-maintained schools and special educational needs, but to consult the Church of Engand and the Roman Catholic Church before appointing members of the funding authorities. The Minister said that he did not believe that it was necessary to consult local education authorities in the same way as the amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult those other bodies. He explained the rationale behind that as being that the funding authorities were set up to deal with grant-maintained schools.

Will the Minister reflect not on anything that I may say on the issue but on what he said at various stages during the Bill's passage? For example, at the Committee's third sitting, on 19 November 1992, he said :

"In other words, the duty of the FAS to secure sufficient school places need not, and should not, operate where it is

Column 73

economically more sensible for an LEA to make provision in that way."--[ Official Report, Standing Committe E, 19 November 1992 ; c. 82.]

The Minister accepted the important liaison between the two bodies. At the eighth sitting, on 1 December 1992, he said :

"Both bodies will be able to bring forward statutory proposals only in respect of their own sector. But, when considering the needs of their particular sectors, both bodies will have to take account of the provision that exists in the other sector."

Again at the eighth sitting, the Minister said :

"LEAs will need to carry out a more strategic planning role in partnership with funding authorities, if we are to ensure that there are sufficient school places."

He went on to say :

"An essential aspect of the activities of the funding agency for schools and of clause 7 is to provide a strategic planning framework for the grant- maintained sector alongside that of the LEA."--[ Official Report, Standing Committee E, 1 December 1992 ; c. 337-39.]

At the 10th sitting, the Minister said :

"I expected the funding agency for schools to work in close harmony with LEAs".--[ Official Report, Standing Committee E, 3 December 1992 ; c. 443.]

Mr. Forth indicated assent.

Mr. Foster : Given that the Minister nods his head and acknowledges his earlier comments, it is difficult to understand why he is willing to accept that it is important and relevant to consult the Churches, but not the local education authorities, when appointing members to the funding authorities. Although none of us fully understands how it will work, he seemed to be saying that there will be a close working relationship between those two bodies at a local level. It therefore makes sense, if not to accept our proposal, which would allow people with experience of LEAs to work in the funding authorities, at least to agree to the detailed consultation.

Dr. Spink : The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) referred in her opening remarks to section 11 funding. That is a Home Office grant directed towards the teaching of English--largely on a one-to-one basis--to pupils who may not have English as their first language. That grant will cut in 1994-95 and 1995-96. Does the hon. Lady realise that those areas that typically receive that grant get a higher level of standard spending assessment, and they are free to redirect part of that SSA to teaching those children?

Mrs. Ann Taylor : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, both for asking that question and for allowing me to respond.

The pressures on schools that require assistance from section 11 funding are significant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that, when the Home Office and the Department of Education boasted about increasing section 11 money, they could do so because they said that the money would contribute to the education of children who needed help at a critical stage in their learning of English as a second language. I hope that he agrees that removing section 11 funding will cause more problems for the eduation service. If the Government are to give money for reading recovery schemes, the money that will be required for those schemes will be far greater if section 11 funding is reduced.

Column 74

Dr. Spink : I accept that section 11 funding is directed in a good area and is used effectively, as was reported by the Audit Commission a couple of years ago.

Does the hon. Lady agree with me on two points? First, LEAs have it within their powers to redirect part of their funds towards continuing the teaching to which she refers if that teaching is so important. Secondly, a large number of children are being presented to school without a word of English because, after they are born in this country, they are sent abroad to live until they are of school age ; their parents then bring them back to this country to attend school. Does the hon. Lady think that that is a responsible way for parents in this country to treat their children? Are not the parents giving their children a disadvantage? Should the British taxpayer be footing the bill?

Mrs. Taylor : The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. First, local authorities do not have spare cash floating around that they can devote to replacing cuts in section 11 money, any more than they have spare cash for other reasons. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the pressures that capping of local authorities is causing in many areas.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman made a point about children from ethnic minority backgrounds who were sent abroad before the age of five. My constituency has a large ethnic minority population and children are not sent away in the way that is suggested by the hon. Gentleman. That is not the reason the children have problems with the English language. The problem is that their home language is not English. If there were investment in nursery education and pre-school provision, there would be far fewer language problems. What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, and what the Minister is doing in cutting section 11 funding, will cost the education service more in the long run.

Dr. Spink : The Minister is doing nothing of the sort. The grant to which the hon. Lady refers comes from the Home Office, not the Department for Education. No doubt the hon. Lady will look that up later.

I am indebted to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing us to have this very important micro-debate within the general debate. The general debate is about driving up standards of education. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dewsbury may laugh at me for saying that, but my constituents are not laughing. They want standards to be improved. They are fed up with a situation where three in 10 of this country's children leave school unable to read and write properly.

The debate focuses on the standards of education. The hon. Member for Dewsbury will know that grant-maintained schools deliver 30 per cent. more children with five or more graded GCSE passes and 30 per cent. better results on average than all other schools. The Government are promoting grant-maintained schools because they give choice, opportunity and diversity in education. That is the way to drive up standards, and that is why my constituents welcome grant-maintained schools.

In fact, my constituents have welcomed grant-maintained schools so much that every secondary school in my constituency and many of the primary schools are grant-maintained. South Benfleet primary school has just received a letter from the Minister, giving it permission to become grant- maintained from 1 September, and the school is delighted with that.

Column 75

Mr. Oliver Heald (Hertfordshire, North) : On the basis of my hon. Friend's experience with the many grant-maintained schools in his constituency, what advice would he give to schools that are considering whether to do so?

6.45 pm

Dr. Spink : My advice is unequivocal--the schools should become grant-maintained as quickly as possible. It gives schools choice and the freedom to make decisions at a point where those decisions matter. It gives parents control over the education of their children. It brings real local democracy into schools, because grant-maintained schools are accountable every year to parent groups.

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam) : Does my hon. Friend agree that it can be difficult to get the good news about the advantages of grant -maintained schools to parents when LEAs use every possible obstacle? Does he further agree that the truth should go out? The benefits are undeniable and the three schools in my constituency that have become grant-maintained have not regretted the move. They are telling the good news to other parents, and the parents are listening.

Dr. Spink : I am indebted to my hon. Friend for her remarks, with which I agree. Grant-maintained schools are so successful that, by April 1994, the trend shows that there will be 1,500 grant-maintained schools. At that point, the Government will need help to perform the functions that are needed to care for the public funds and to ensure that there is intense scrutiny and audit in the schools. The system would become increasingly inefficient and inappropriate if all executive tasks were carried out by the Department for Education. As the diversity of the provision spreads, LEAs will find it difficult to accomplish those tasks. I therefore welcome the establishment of a new statutory body, the Funding Agency for Schools.

Mr. Forth : With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to a debate that has covered a wide range of subjects.

For me, the highlight of the brief debate came when the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) referred to the Funding Agency for Schools as a "remote body"--I think that was the term she used. She is obviously unaware that the funding agency is based in York. It strikes me that for her of all hon. Members to make that reference is charmingly eccentric, and I shall put it no higher than that--I shall leave the hon. Lady to account for her remark.

The hon. Member for Halifax also made a lot about the differences in the Government's approach to funding the grant-maintained school sector and funding the LEA sector. Those of her hon. Friends who heard me speak in Committee will know that the Government have never made a secret of the fact that, in both capital and revenue terms, we have always sought to acknowledge the different role, nature and responsibilities of grant- maintained schools in their funding arrangements.

We have made no secret of the fact that the capital funding regime will recognise that. We have always sought to ensure that, in revenue terms, through the annual maintenance grant, grant-maintained schools receive more money than their LEA counterparts ; they have to, because they carry greater responsibilities.

The cash protection provision--I think that that is what is causing such excitement among Opposition Members--rightly provides an element of protection

Column 76

during schools' transition from their LEA incarnation to grant-maintained status. It is somewhat similar to the transitional arrangements that are rightly allowed for in local education authority local management of schools schemes, in respect of which provision is made to afford a degree of protection against violent oscillations or variations in the amount of money available to schools from year to year.

Mrs. Mahon : May we get this clear? Is the Minister saying that it is all right if local education authority schools have their delegated budgets cut next year to fund the handful of

grant-maintained schools? Does he believe that that is right?

Mr. Forth : As I told the hon. Lady earlier, I am saying that it is for local education authorities to assess their own priorities and make their own arrangements, through their LMS formulae and through the funding for education in their areas, in respect of which they have a great deal of flexibility. That continues to be the case.

Mr. Don Foster : The House deserves greater clarification than the Minister has given the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). The hon. Lady has teased out of the Minister his acceptance that, during the undefined transitional period, grant-maintained schools get additional money to protect them. As the Minister well knows, that money comes from the local education authority. That means that an LEA's remaining schools suffer as a result of the additional transitional costs, which the Minister has now accepted exist. I have another question. Does the Minister accept that, in revenue terms, grant-maintained schools should receive only such additional money as is commensurate with their additional responsibilities--or will they receive money in addition to that extra money?

Mr. Forth : We have always said that the additional money available on a revenue basis to grant-maintained schools was designed to reflect their additional responsibilities. I make no secret of that. It does not have to should be for. How, then, can he justify the many variations and the clear duplications in funding that have been thrown up by many surveys? Does he think it right that

grant-maintained schools should be not only compensated for extra administrative costs but double-funded?

Mr. Forth : I glory in variation. The fact that our White Paper was entitled "Choice and Diversity" and that, as has been said, we welcome specialisation means that I can readily accept what the hon. Lady says. I would go further : we have always welcomed the enormous variation in local management of schools schemes and formulae up and down the country. I think that I am right in saying that no two local education authorities in the land have identical LMS schemes. I do not shrink from--indeed, I positively welcome--the fact that there is a variety and diversity of provision in different authorities and different grant-maintained schools. Given that grant-maintained school funding is closely tied to the LEA funding--and will continue to be so, even under the common funding formula--that degree of variation will continue.

Column 77

Dr. Spink : Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, since 1979-80, funding per pupil in primary and secondary schools has increased by 45 per cent. in real terms? Does he agree that LEA schools have received their fair share of that real terms increase and that education has benefited while pupil-teacher ratios have fallen?

Mr. Forth : My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The only gloss that I would put on it, following my previous point, is that there are rightly variations between LEAs, some of which choose to fund way below their education SSA--which I know is only an indicative figure--and others of which choose to fund above it. That variation exists throughout the country. We can all have our own thoughts about it and, from time to time, one is tempted to draw attention to individual authorities that behave rather peculiarly in that respect. Nevertheless, the variations remain.

Mrs. Ann Taylor : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Forth : I shall give way once more ; then I want to reply to other hon. Members.

Mrs. Taylor : Will the Minister now answer my question? Will he defend the £13.6 million in double funding that has been proved to take place? Does he think that that is a wise use of taxpayers' money?

Mr. Forth : Yes.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) made much play of the need for openness. Had he sat through the long dark hours of the proceedings of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, he would have heard me speak at some length about non-departmental public bodies. I debated with people in my office whether I should bring with me today the document that I had at my disposal then. I thought that I would not need it on this occasion. I wish that I had brought it, because I could have displayed it proudly, as I did then.

That document sets out in great detail the responsibilities of the NDPBs, of which the Funding Agency for Schools is one. Those Opposition Members who suffered with me--I am sorry, who enjoyed with me--the long proceedings of that Committee will be able to tell the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston the extraordinary extent to which those bodies are obliged to report and to make public their financial affairs and many of their other activities.

That ties in with the openness that now exists in relation to grant- maintained schools--in some respect, much greater openness that occurs with LEA schools. Grant-maintained schools have to hold annual general meetings and produce annual reports. They have to produce annual accounts, which have to be audited and be available for public scrutiny. I would argue that the openness of the regime is there for all to see--at the level of schools and the funding agency, which will be constrained by the rules referring to NDPBs. There is great openness in the scheme, and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston should welcome it.

Mr. Stephen Byers (Wallsend) : In that spirit of openness, will the Minister agree to place in the Library a copy of the internal report of his own chief accountant on the abuse of public money by the Grant Maintained Schools Centre?

Column 78

Mr. Forth : If I am not mistaken, that document has been made available to the Public Accounts Committee in commercial confidence. [Hon. Members :-- "Ah."] No, no, no. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said the other day, distinctions are rightly made between matters that are properly in the public domain and matters that need not be in that domain. I make no apology for that. I wholly agree with the distinction that my right hon. Friend made.

The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was kind enough to quote me in extenso. Like many hon. Members, I suspect, I always enjoy hearing my own words--especially pearls of wisdom of the kind uttered by me at many different sittings of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman made much play of the fact that the Funding Agency for Schools would be expected to co- operate with local education authorities and to exchange information with them as required in the Bill.

I do not know whether we ever sorted out the difference between shared and parallel duties, although in the end I think that we understood very well what they meant. All that is right. However, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that simply because different bodies have duties and obligations to work together, they should be cross-represented--that it is necessary for members of one body to serve on the other to achieve that degree of co- operation and that exchange of information.

I believe that the degree of co-operation to which we referred in Committee should be achievable on the basis that we have identified. I think that we were right to make the concession that is contained in the Lords amendment- -with which I hope the House will agree--which is designed to ensure that there is proper representation from the Churches, which are an important element, albeit a distinct element, very different from local education authorities and grant-maintained schools. That much I believe, but we cannot go as far as the hon. Member for Bath wanted us to go.

I hope that, in the brief time available, I have answered the substantive points made by Opposition Members and that, in so doing, I have brought out the important distinctions, made across different areas, referred to in the amendments. I felt, if I may say so, that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston brushed aside the point that I made earlier about value for money and the concern that I expressed about possible infringement of the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The hon. Gentleman was almost cavalier about it. We must surely pay attention to the role, as defined and understood, of the Comptroller and Auditor General, as we must of the role of our own Public Accounts Committee.

I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's amendment honours that important--

It being Seven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker,-- pursuant to the Order this day, put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker-- then put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 24 agreed to.

Column 79

Clause 19

"Grant-maintained schools"

Lords amendment : No. 25, in page 9, line 11, leave out ("new").

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire) : I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords ithe said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this, we may consider also Lords amendments Nos. 39, plus the Opposition motion to disagree, and Nos. 40 to 42, 45, 166, 371, 409, 422 to 425, 541 and 547.

Mr. Squire : I noted that in an earlier debate my fellow Under- Secretary, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), felt that he must apologise for joining the proceedings of the Education Bill halfway through. If he felt that he needed to apologise for turning up at the eleven-and-a-halfth-hour, I must make more apologies--but I do so with enthusiasm.

I shall be brief, because I suspect that several hon. Members may wish to speak. The Government believe that the other place was right to remove the threshold of the 10 per cent. trigger point so that promoters could present their own proposals to set up a new grant-maintained school anywhere in the country. That will promote choice and diversity for parents and pupils--one of the key elements of our educational reform.

The other place decided, and we agree, that the Bill as originally drafted was unfair on those who wish to propose the establishment of new grant- maintained schools in areas where there is currently few or indeed no grant -maintained schools. I hope that hon. Members will not support the Opposition's motion to disagree, to which we obviously look forward. We cannot agree with the view that some promoters should be prevented from putting forward their own proposals simply because they happen to be in areas where it is unlikely that there would be any GM schools in the foreseeable future.

My right hon. Friend will look closely at all applications for new GM schools, and in doing so will continue to apply broadly similar criteria to those that apply when promoters wish to establish a new voluntary school. In line with our policy of tackling the problem of surplus places, my right hon. Friend will look carefully at the need for additional school places in the area, as well as denominational need where appropriate. Promoters will have to demonstrate that there will be a projected shortage of places in the LEA and GM sectors in the near future.

We shall consider whether a school is able to provide the national curriculum and offer equal opportunities to girls and boys. We will need to see that the premises are suitable, and will note whether the funding authority supports the proposals.

Mr. David Jamieson (Plymouth, Devonport) : Will the Minister confirm that amendment 397, on which we have just agreed, in effect gives power to the funding agency to obtain compulsory purchase orders to provide land for private promoters of schools? Has he thought of all the ramifications that that could have?

Mr. Squire : With the leave of the House, I will willingly come back to the specific question of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a significant difference

Column 80

between the role of the promoters and that of the funding agency. The amendment refers to the promoters and not to the funding agency. I was about to say that amendments Nos. 25, 42, 166, 371, 422, 423, 425, 541 and 547 are all technical, to ensure that promoters are able to propose the establishment of new GM schools, including establishing a new GM school in place of existing independent schools. I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Tony Lloyd (Stretford) : I wish to carry on where the Minister left off in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). I hope that he will take my hon. Friend's remarks seriously, because he raised an important point in this context. My hon. Friend referred to schedule 1, which says : "The Secretary of State may authorise a funding authority to compulsorily purchase any land required for the purpose of implementing any proposals under section 45 or 92 of the Act which are required to be implemented."

Of course, there is a further amendment which extends that power of compulsory purchase to the promoter, to which my hon. Friend referred.

I hope that the Minister understands that one of the promoters, who proposed the group of amendments that we are discussing, expressed the view that failing independent schools--those that cannot make a living in the independent sector--should be allowed to opt into opting out. Those independent schools would be able to ask the Secretary of State for power, in effect, compulsorily to purchase land owned by the local authority. That has serious consequences.

Without casting any aspersions on the Minister's knowledge of the Bill, let me say that he clearly did not know that that was the case. A major power is being given to independent schools. The Minister should seek some guidance from his officials at this stage, because it is ridiculous to propose something with such far-reaching consequences.

For example, an independent school could propose, through the Secretary of State, that it take over a cricket field from the local authority. It could decide that that cricket field was surplus to requirements and then begin to develop part of it for housing developments or whatever, and gain the advantage of those capital receipts. That would be an abuse of the system, but one entirely consistent with the reading that we are able to make of the Bill, as it stands amended at that late stage in the Lords. The Minister ought to respond to the House.

We were told when the Bill was introduced that it was about giving schools back to parents to ensure that parents had control of schools. When the Bill completed Second Reading, Committee and Report, we were assured that the funding agency would begin to have any role only once the 10 per cent. threshold had been reached by those schools that had chosen to opt out of local authority control. The Minister justified that by saying that it was right and proper that parents vote for that change and, in the end, that should bring into being the funding agency.

The Minister has told us tonight, however, that any ideas that the funding agency should come into being because of parental demand have gone out of the window. The Minister said that it would be unfair on promoters, if they were not allowed to develop schools in areas where "it is unlikely there will be grant-maintained schools in the foreseeable future."

Next Section

Home Page