| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Gillan: The heart of the Bill is contained in clause 1: it is the vehicle which the Government are using to snatch the assisted places scheme from the grasp of 34,000 children. We had a good debate on the amendments to clause 1, but they did not cover the scheme as a whole or the principles behind the abolition of the scheme.
The scheme played an integral part in the previous Government's policy of promoting choice, diversity and excellence in education. It gave choice to parents, especially parents on low incomes. As we heard on Second Reading, more than 40 per cent. of children who attended independent schools on assisted places came from families with an income of less than £10,000. More than 80 per cent. of the pupils currently in the scheme come from families whose income is below the national average.
It is amazing that, for the purposes of other debates on other subjects, the Government deem a family that has a total income of below £10,000 to be in poverty, but for the purposes of abolishing the assisted places scheme, it was suggested on Second Reading that some of those families were Lloyd's names or other undeserving individuals. I find that abhorrent, because it has been obvious from the examination of the scheme over many years that the families who benefit have incomes in the lowest quartile.
Mr. Clappison:
I think that it was the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), who said on Second Reading that about 1,000 families with an income of more than £24,000 received assistance. Is my hon. Friend aware that a family in such circumstances has to make a contribution of more than £3,000? Does she agree that that is a substantial sacrifice for a family on such an income, and it shows how highly those families value the assisted places scheme?
Mrs. Gillan:
My hon. Friend is right. The Government have no concept of the sacrifice that families make to obtain what they consider to be the right education for their children.
Mr. Byers:
The hon. Lady asserted that it was outrageous to say that children of Lloyd's names received an assisted place. Will she confirm that that statement was made by the former Conservative Member for Buckingham, George Walden?
Mrs. Gillan:
Unlike Labour Members, I will not confirm something that I do not know. The Minister
Families are prepared to pay that contribution because they believe in the scheme and think that it is worth while. They are willing to make the sacrifice. I know parents who are on incomes much higher than that but are not willing to make the sacrifice to send their children to independent schools. Perhaps they believe that that form of education is not right for their child.
The parents who have applied for assisted places and whose children have been clever enough to obtain places in independent schools believe that that form of education is right for their children. The Government are now telling them that they will no longer have the opportunity to obtain the education that they believe and know is best for their child.
There is no doubt that the Government are treating independent schools with great disdain. They have broken the contract with independent schools. As one of my hon. Friends rightly said in the debate on the amendments, there was a three-year contract with these schools and the Government have broken it. The breaking of that contract will go down in history as one of the biggest acts of political envy that the Government could perpetrate.
The raison d'etre for abolishing the scheme comes down to two Labour soundbites: "We will reduce class sizes" and--
Mr. Phil Woolas (Oldham, East and Saddleworth):
Govern for the many, not the few.
Mrs. Gillan:
The hon. Member has repeated it very well--"We will govern for the many, not the few."
The effect of a reduction in class sizes has been examined over and again. The Government's sums do not add up. They have consistently tried to pull the wool over our eyes about the amounts that are needed to meet their targets. If they do not know the amount of money that is required to reduce class sizes to below 30 by the end of the lifetime of this Parliament, how can they possibly justify destroying the scheme and saving a small amount of money that will go only part way towards reaching that target?
Where will the extra money come from to reduce class sizes? The Minister is not listening, because he does not care and he does not know the answer. If he knew the answer, he would have given it in the previous debate. Once again, I am giving the Minister the opportunity to answer the questions that he failed to answer in the previous debate. How much money must he find to reduce class sizes to 30 by the end of this Parliament?
I feel strongly about this subject, which is more than can be said for the Minister. How will LEAs prepare for the increased number of children who may be thrown into their schools because of the abolition of the scheme? Why have the Government not delayed the scheme to enable independent schools to replace the money that they currently receive from assisted places? The Minister does not have the resources to fund his pledges. He will take a meagre amount from the abolition of the scheme, and that is the pathetic excuse for the legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) asked the Minister in a written question what estimate he had made of the amount of money that would be available for education from the abolition of the assisted places scheme, net of the cost of educating within the state sector those pupils who would otherwise have been on the assisted places scheme. The Minister replied:
Will the Minister give an undertaking, based on his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, that no LEA will face additional costs as a result of taking children who would otherwise have been educated under the assisted places scheme? He could probably give an undertaking on that--if he is prepared to stand by his answer to that written question, which he answered today.
I should like to deal with the soundbite on which this vicious legislation is based.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn):
Vicious?
Mrs. Gillan:
Yes, I said vicious, and I hope that the Minister heard me correctly. I am glad that I have the House's attention.
The Government have said that they will govern for the many, not the few. Have Labour Members analysed that pathetic little soundbite? If they believe it, we face one of the most dangerous Governments that the country has had. Any Government who take their responsibilities seriously would appreciate that they have to govern for the few. It is essential to protect the interests of minorities, and sometimes to enhance their lives. To govern for the many and not the few would mean that many programmes would be abolished. That is what is to happen to the assisted places scheme.
If the Government intend to govern for the many and not for the few, I presume that they will abolish section 11 funding. The Government of which I was a member provided that funding, and I presume that the present
Government will continue to do that until they fall back on their soundbites. That funding is not for the many: it is for the few people for whom English is not the first language. If the Government intend to keep their pledges, they will do away with section 11 funding. Governing for the many and not for the few means that money will not be put into the travellers education unit. That money is for the few children of travellers who might need a special type of education which costs more than the average place in the primary or secondary sectors.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord):
Order. I have allowed some latitude, but I should be grateful if the hon. Lady returned to the debate on the clause.
Mrs. Gillan:
I mean no discourtesy to the Chair. The clause is the heart of the Bill. I have said that the Government's pledge is that they will govern for the many, not the few, and I shall relate that directly to assisted places.
"There will be no significant additional burden on Local Education Authorities from educating children who would otherwise have entered the assisted places scheme each year."
Does that mean that those children will be educated free? The Minister's answer suggests that he has no concept of the cost of each place at a maintained school. He has said that there will be "no significant additional burden" on LEAs. Will he define a "significant additional burden"? The Minister's answer to my hon. Friend was a fudge, and I expect him to define that answer when he replies to the debate. It is another question in addition to all those that he has disrespectfully failed to answer in Committee.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |