| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
New clause 2
'Nothing in this Act shall prevent a local authority from reimbursing a former participating school in respect of the fees of any pupil resident in the area of that local authority whom the authority determines may benefit from education at that school.'.--[Mr. St. Aubyn.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3--Power of charity to continue to assist pupils--
'--(1) Nothing in this Act shall prevent a charity from reimbursing either--
(a) a former participating school, or
(b) a local authority,
in respect of the fees of any pupil resident in the area of that local authority whom the authority determines may benefit from education at that school.
(2) Expenditure by a charity in making a reimbursement under subsection (1) above shall be charitable expenditure within the meaning of section 44 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993.'
Mr. St. Aubyn: I have found out about powers that the House has that, as a new Member, I had not dreamed I would be learning about so soon. I am very grateful to the Public Bills Office for its assistance in drafting the new clauses. I apologise if they are deficient, but they come from a new Back Bencher. I should like to explain their purpose. In the debate in Committee, Conservatives have felt that we were dealing with closed minds in the Government. I hope that the Ministers will take the opportunity of the new clauses to show that they do not have closed minds and that they are prepared to listen to points that are made consistently and in a heartfelt way by Opposition Members. When a point with which Ministers feel that they can agree is made, I hope that they are prepared to listen. I hope that that will prove to be the case with the new clauses.
I also hope that the Liberal Democrats, bearing in mind what they said about their support for local partnership schemes in their manifesto, will give their support to the new clause.
Mr. Don Foster: If it enables the hon. Gentleman to move on, I can assure him that, if the new clauses are pressed to a vote, he will get the support of the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that assurance. It is welcome and, no doubt, it will add weight to the arguments that I shall put to the Government. While it may go against the grain for a new Labour Government to use funds from the Department for Education and Employment to meet the costs of the assisted places scheme, we have already established in debate that the additional cost, over the standard cost of education in the state sector, is no more than around £1,000 per child per year. I may be being optimistic, but in certain areas--including my area in Surrey--it might be possible to find charities or companies to put up the money, or to use funds and bursaries from the schools involved in the scheme, to bridge the gap of £1,000 per year. Such charities, companies or bursaries would not be able to meet the much greater cost of nearly £4,000 a year that would arise if all the funding for the scheme were withdrawn. We should not forget, however, that in that case the state sector would still have to pick the tab for educating the children in state schools It should also be clear to Ministers that, however comforting the calculations made in their offices by civil servants, the impact of the scheme in certain areas is much greater than in others. While the scheme has not taken root in a big way in the areas that Labour Members represent, it has filled a need in areas about which they do not have the same knowledge but which we represent. That is why we have argued against the Bill hour after hour, and sought an extra day of debate. I will give some examples. In the county of Surrey, there are 1,264 children on the assisted places scheme in 22 schools. In contrast, in Buckinghamshire there are just nine children at one school involved in the scheme. If we consider our cities, they tell the same story. In the city of Bristol, there are nearly 1,500 children involved in nine schools; yet in the much larger city of Birmingham there are barely 600 children involved in just six schools. Just as the take-up of assisted places is concentrated in certain areas, the problems and difficulties created by winding down the scheme would also be concentrated. The problem is made worse because of the decision already made today that the education of those on the scheme in the primary sector will end at the age of 11. That will mean that, as the scheme is phased out, all the burden on the local state sector will be borne by one year group--year seven. While we heard some comforting numbers from the Minister the other day about the tiny percentage of children involved who will be shifted from the independent sector to state schools, in Guildford the year group numbers will be inflated by nearly 10 per cent. That is why the pressures of the scheme need a valve to relieve them. In Surrey, we have other pressures. We already have rising school rolls. This afternoon I spoke to the chairman of Surrey county council education committee, who said
that we will have to find an extra £3 million to cope with the rising school numbers in the state system, even before the effect of the abolition of the scheme. While the marginal cost of educating a child in the state sector at secondary school and in sixth form may be only £2,700, that does not take account of capital expenditure. The rise in numbers will not be absorbed by schools in my area without incurring further capital expenditure. It is clear that there are many reasons why certain local authorities would be keen to see the scheme continued. I am conscious that we have heard from some Labour Members that they are against the assisted places scheme in principle, and not just because of the savings that they claim will be achieved to help primary schools. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) has said:
- "My main reason for wanting to get rid of the assisted places scheme is that it perpetuates the class system."--[Official Report, 2 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 46.]
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has told us that this is a socialist Bill. We know that, but the Government are new Labour and we hope that they will listen to our points.
7.15 pm
Labour Members may believe that the scheme is divisive in their areas, but the assisted places scheme, far from being divisive, gives children in my constituency a wider choice and opportunity. They are lucky to have good state schools and they are also lucky to have the choice of assisted places. Independent education is extremely popular in my area. Nearly one in five families choose to send their children to independent schools. In such an area, the scheme is not divisive. I recognise, of course, that the area that I represent is fortunate.
If the Government wish to make savings on assisted places to give more money to primary schools to achieve the class sizes that have already been achieved in Surrey, they are entitled to do so. However, the purpose of the new clauses is to ask the Government not to be dogmatic and to leave some flexibility for local education authorities, such as Surrey, to try to bridge the gap of £1,000 a year that an assisted place costs on average through independent funding.
If we can find that funding from somewhere, why should the Government stand in the way? The Government will still make the savings that they have budgeted for on behalf of primary schools. In fact, given the doubts that we have cast on the savings, the real risk is that by pressing ahead with the scheme now you will not make those savings because of the knock-on effects of winding down the scheme. It is in your interests as much as in ours and our constituents' to allow the flexibility that the new clauses will provide.
New clause 2 would make it clear that local authorities could take the initiative and continue with a form of the assisted places scheme. The purpose of new clause 3 is to provide for a wide range of sources of funding to bridge the gap between the standard cost of a secondary school education and that of an assisted place. It would ensure that the widest possible range of sources of funding would be achieved.
I believe that it was a Government press release that, only a couple of weeks ago, talked of allowing lottery funds to be used to promote education, health and other
initiatives that fell outside the services provided by taxation. There could be no clearer example of an initiative that, on your own definition, falls outside--
The Second Deputy Chairman:
Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but he keeps using the words "you" and "your". The matters under discussion are not my responsibility.
Mr. St. Aubyn:
Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Lord. I will try to remember it.
I was trying to explain that the Government issued a press release clearly setting out the case for lottery funding, among other sources, to be used for initiatives that they do not consider should fall within the ambit of their departmental spending--a decision that, as a Government, they are entitled to make. Surely, if there is any initiative which deserves such funding, it must be the initiative that I am suggesting.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |