| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): The Secretary of State's contribution today has been most unedifying. I listened carefully, and I heard the assurances that he gave the House about the way in which those children will be treated. He said that there was nothing disreputable in his behaviour and nothing underhand in the way in which the Government will deal with this. However, the last thing that he was prepared to do was to put his words in writing in the Bill. It is that which gives the House cause for concern. It certainly gave cause for concern in another place.
If the Secretary of State is suggesting that we do not have cause for concern, that we have been given a bankable assurance and that the reservations expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) are groundless, he has no reason to resist this modest but clear amendment. If the Government agree to the amendment, the people of this country--the 2,000 or so children who will potentially be affected--will have clear notice from the Government that they acknowledge the concerns. They would be giving an assurance to those children and their parents that they will behave honourably.
The argument that the amendment undermines the whole purpose of the Bill is pathetic. It is a narrow amendment which deals with a specific point, not with the underlying principles of the Bill--which most Conservative Members find deeply offensive. It deals with a small number of children and parents who deserve better treatment than they have had so far from the Labour Government.
My other point relates to the rather old-fashioned, class-warrior remarks of the Secretary of State about the decision of the other place to try to revise the Bill. His attack on hereditary peerages was rather pathetic. Their Lordships basically said that they were dissatisfied with the assurances that they had received and that there was therefore a need to revise the Bill. They were acting as the defenders not of privilege, but of those children from poor households who had been given the opportunity, by the Conservative Government, of education at independent schools regarded throughout the world as of the finest.
I hope that the message will go out to the people of this country that the right hon. Gentleman and his party are not content simply to have the most massive majority in
this House for decades, but are so arrogant and so new Labour that they brook no opposition, from wherever it might come.
Mr. Blunkett:
Especially from a Tory hereditary peer.
Mr. Howarth:
That is a cheap remark. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there should be no revision; no opportunity for the decisions of this House to be revised? The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) is nodding. If this House is to be the sole authority, why have another Chamber? Why not abolish it? [Hon. Members: "Yes."] There we have it--old Labour noises from new Labour faces. They are not interested in any opposition; they wish arrogantly to promote their cause, however unjust or misguided.
Mrs. Gillan:
The House knows of my deep hatred of the Bill, which I have vigorously opposed at every stage. I am delighted with the way in which the new Conservative Front-Bench team have taken up the reins in opposing a vicious Bill that is based on class envy.
I congratulate the Government on doing one thing of which I thoroughly approve--protecting the music and ballet assisted places scheme, which is aimed at children who are talented in music or dance. Of course, the cost per pupil of that scheme is £13,000, so this amendment would cost very little to include in the Bill.
During the passage of the Bill, and not least on this amendment, we have tried to persuade, cajole and urge the Government to use common sense, despite their determination to abolish the scheme. We asked them to wait and see, because if their pledges on standards--which we all applaud--were fulfilled, the scheme would wither on the vine.
Had the Government been prepared to wait a little, that would have given schools time to absorb the change and perhaps find alternatives ways of funding pupils from less well-off families. However, the Government would not accept that and now they will not accept this reasoned amendment, which was passed by 127 Members of the other place. I congratulate those life and hereditary peers who thought it important to send their views to this place.
The amendment is a matter of honour. Both this and the other place are honourable Houses. I call on the Government to look on the amendment as a matter of honour. Indeed, one noble Lord--who agrees with the Government on the principle of the Bill--said that the Kilfoyle letter should be honoured. He said that the Government should start with a presumption of innocence
in favour of those pupils and parents who are in the position referred to in the Kilfoyle letter. If we cannot appeal to the Government on logic, can we at least appeal to them on the ground of honour?
Mrs. Gillan:
The Independent Schools Information Service has estimated that about 2,000 children will fall into that category, as I said in my intervention the Secretary of State's speech. We have heard how the discretion will be applied, but we have also heard that the right hon. Gentleman considers that no expense will be involved in examining the cases of those children. It is rather sad that he considers that the departmental time of officials is not an expense. I would have thought that he would acknowledge that the officials who will no longer be required to administer the team will end their work more quickly if the amendment were accepted. If he rejects the amendment, the officials will have more of their time taken up examining the so-called discretionary arrangement, so it will be an additional cost on the taxpayer.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), I was alarmed by the attack on the House of Lords and the use of that appalling soundbite, "Privilege defending privilege." The Secretary of State should accept that it is a case of privilege defending the underprivileged--something on which his party should be concentrating, as the Conservative Government always did.
The very fact that the right hon. Gentleman refers to privilege means that it is the privilege of the independent schools that bothers him. That betrays his antipathy towards independent schools, which was revealed so clearly on 2 June when, from a sedentary position, the right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted a colleague to preside over the demise of the independent sector.
Mrs. Gillan:
The Secretary of State said it in a sedentary intervention recorded in Hansard.
We have tried every means to amend the Bill. We make a final appeal that the Government accept this well-thought-through amendment from the other place--for the sake of the children and as a matter of honour.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
I want to add a few remarks to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Secretary of State brought discredit on himself by attacking the Lords for seeking to amend the Bill in a way that was designed to give effect to the promises made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) before the election.
I took part in the Second Reading and Committee debates on the Bill. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell). In those debates, Ministers defended the provision by referring to a limited discretion in terms very similar to those used in a letter to schools issued by the Department. The letter talked about a limited discretion in exceptional circumstances, which were described solely in relation to
We do not know the circumstances under which they will break that pledge. When Baroness Blackstone talks about the potential for abuse, we are in murky territory. There is no evidence of such abuses. No evidence is offered that schools have been seeking to encourage parents to maintain places against the interests of their children. Quite the opposite is the case.
"easing integration into the maintained sector in those areas where the normal age of transfer is later than age 11."
24 Jul 1997 : Column 1099
The evidence asked of schools wishing to apply on behalf of parents for such discretion makes no reference to the Kilfoyle letter.
When we debated the matter before, Ministers did not talk about discretion in the terms that were later used in the upper House. It is clear from what Baroness Blackstone said about discretion that the Government are seeking to cover up their clear failure to meet the pledges that they made before the election. They are trying to say that they can meet those pledges by the exercise of discretion, but it is clear that they will not. Baroness Blackstone said:
"If it can be demonstrated that the offers were made on the strength of the Kilfoyle letter, then, yes, we shall exercise discretion"--[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 July 1997; Vol. 581, c. 1093.]
The pledge made by the hon. Member for Walton was unequivocal. He said:
"If a child has a place at a school which runs to age 13, then that place will be honoured through to 13."
He did not say that the place had to be offered on the understanding of the commitment in that letter. He gave a clear expression of an intention that such places would be honoured. Ministers are trying to run away from that pledge. If they intended to honour such assisted places through to 13, they would put that in the Bill. The evidence suggests that they will not honour places in the terms of the letter issued before the election. They seek to break that promise.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |